Aliran to DPM: You were wrong
(Malaysian Mirror) – Reform movement Aliran has come out in support of the Bar Council, which has been criticised by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin over the disbarment of Permatang Pasir by-election candidate Rohaizat Othman.
Aliran president P Ramakrishnan (pic) said Muhyiddin’s comments when taking the Bar Council to task over the issue were unfair and uncalled for.
Ramakrishnan accused the DPM of being ignorant of the circumstances leading to Rohaizat's disbarment and does not understand the process involved in the action taken by the Bar Council’s disciplinary board.
“Without considering all the facts in the disciplinary process – before a lawyer is found guilty – it was terribly wrong for the DPM to pass disparaging remarks on the Bar Council
DPM cannot accuse council has agenda
“He (the DPM) has no right to accuse the Bar Council of having an agenda and siding with certain quarters. The Bar Council’s conduct in this instance has been beyond reproach and very ethical,” Ramakrishnan said.
Rohaizat is the Barisan Nasional candidate in the Permatang Pasir by-election on Tuesday, where he will be facing Penang PAS commissioner Salleh Man.
Following his nomination to contest in the by-election, the Bar Council raised the fact that Rohaizat was disbarred last year after its disciplinary board found him guilty of misconduct by failing to return about RM161,000 belonging to one of his clients.
Council secretary George Varughese, who disclosed this, said the finding of misconduct is personal to Rohaizat, as the (advocates and solicitors) disciplinary board would not hold a lawyer liable for the actions of his/her law partner(s).
Points finger at partner
Rohaizat took his case to the High Court to have the decision of the disciplinary board overturned. On Aug 12 – five days before the nomination for the Permatang Pasir by-election – the court dismissed his appeal.
Rohaizat later claimed that it was his partner in their legal firm who was guilty of the offence. Yusri Isahak, who had left the firm, had dismissed the claims as ‘a blatant lie.’
Rohaizat (pic) now has another avenue to take up his case. Under Section 103E, he has “the right to appeal to the High Court within one month of notification of the decision or order complained against.”
Muhyiddin recently questioned the intention of the Bar Council in bringing up the issue at this time. He asked if the council had any agenda or if it was siding any quarter.
Clarifying the process involved, Ramakrishnan said when a client is dissatisfied with the conduct of his lawyer, he (the client) can lodge a complaint of misconduct with the disciplinary board in writing.
He added that the complaint must be accompanied by a statutory declaration that the contents of his letter are facts that are within his knowledge.
“Misconduct” means conduct or omission to act … in a professional capacity or otherwise which amounts to grave impropriety…
There are 15 instances listed as possible grounds of misconduct.
Disciplinary committee
“When the disciplinary board is of the view that there is merit in the complaint, it determines that there should be a formal investigation.
“The disciplinary board then appoints a disciplinary committee – consisting of two advocates and solicitors and one lay person – which will then investigate the complaint.
“The complainant and the respondent are permitted to bring along their witnesses and counsel and both parties are provided with ample opportunity to state their case and defend their position.
“At the end of the investigation, the disciplinary committee submits its report to the disciplinary board by recommending either “that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists” or that punishment such as a reprimand, a fine, a suspension or striking the advocate and solicitor concerned off the Roll be imposed.
“The nature of the punitive action depends on the gravity of the offence,” Ramakrishnan said.
Incidences of misconduct
He said for the extreme punishment to be meted out, the lawyer must be guilty of the following one or all three incidences of misconduct:
(a) dishonest or fraudulent conduct in the discharge of his duties;
(b) gross disregard of his client’s interest; and/or,
(c) being guilty of any conduct which is unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor or which brings or is calculated to bring the legal profession into disrepute.
'He had his say'
Ramakrishnan said Aliran believes the procedures have all been strictly observed in Rohaizat’s case. “He had his say and he was heard,” Ramakrishnan added.
After this, Rohaizat has another avenue to take up his case. Under Section 103E, he had “the right to appeal to the High Court within one month of notification of the decision or order complained against.”
“It is not a haphazard procedure but one that was put in place to ensure that justice is done without fear or favour, he said.
