A lawyer can never guarantee a particular outcome and not getting the desired (or expected) outcome in your case is not enough to amount to a legal malpractice. Nevertheless, as is the case with every regulated profession, a lawyer is bound by prescribed standards, codes of ethical conduct and a high degree of professional care. If a lawyer has acted inappropriately with the intent to and/or knowledge that such an act would harm the client, that client may lodge a complaint against that lawyer to the Malaysian Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board. Any advocate and solicitor who has been guilty of any misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 1976 shall be liable to one or more of the following penalties or punishments: to be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors, to be suspended from practice, to be ordered to pay a fine or to be reprimanded or censured.
We advise and assist complainants and lawyers in pursuing and responding to complaints to the Malaysian Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board.
Our Services
Our services and support include, but is not limited to the following:
- Reviewing the related agreements between parties and identifying the laws and regulations applicable including relevant professional rules, codes and policies.
- Providing legal advisory and support to our clients on compliance in their dealings with the Courts.
- Advising clients on the reliefs available for different types of claims of professional malpractice.
- Advising clients on the procedures involved during the disciplinary hearing before the Disciplinary Committee and/or the Disciplinary Board.
- Negotiating and drafting an amicable settlement between parties, if possible.
- Drafting the complaint form, statutory declaration, and compiling the supporting documents to be filed to the Disciplinary Committee and/or the Disciplinary Board.
- Representing lawyers and complainants before the Disciplinary Committee and/or the Disciplinary Board.
Our Experience
- Represented individuals against their former lawyers who held the clients’ money on trust and refused to release monies to intended recipient(s) and consequently misappropriated clients’ funds.
- Represented an individual against their former lawyer who colluded with the opponent’s lawyer to misrepresent the client’s company in order to gain another profitable contract.
- Defended a former partner of a law firm against a complaint filed based on a mistake (delay in filing by the lawyers) which occurred after the partner had left the firm.
- Advised a local company and issued a legal opinion on whether the company’s proposed new website would be in breach of section 37 of the Legal Profession Act 1976
 | |
| Choo Mun Wei Partner | Hannah Patrick Senior Associate |
| Edwin Raj Senior Associate | Naveen Joshua Senior Associate |
| Sebastian Liew Senior Associate | Jeremy Balang Senior Associate |
| Daphne Rethual Senior Associate | Joseph Khor Associate |
Related Articles and Updates
Issue: Mdm Y*, 55, a small-time business owner, was first admitted into a private hospital…
Effective administration of construction contracts is critical for a productive business relationship between the parties…
Thursday, 7 July 2022 3:00 pm – 4:00 pm “Serious Professional Misconduct” in MMC Disciplinary…
At the time of writing, the countries that top the chart with the highest number…
Employment Law: Medical Boarding Out or Not? Every employee of an employment contract will inadvertently…
Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. However, the Federal Court on 29/12/06 in its judgment in the case of Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593 declared inter alia, that the Bolam Test is no longer applicable. The question of law which was posed for the determination of the Federal Court was whether the Bolam Test in the area of medical negligence should apply in relation to all aspects of medical negligence. The Federal Court answered the question in the negative.
