CASE STUDY 1

BRIEF FACTS

A female employee [E] was sexually harassed and abused by a senior officer of a company.
An Advocate (A) acted for E to sue the officer and the company. In the warrant to act, A and E
agreed that the legal fees would be based on the damages or settlement sum if the case was
successful.

Subsequently the company agreed to settle and offered a huge compensation subject to the
conditions that E agreed that the officer and company did no wrong, that the settlement must
be confidential and that E and A were not allowed to talk to the media about the case. The
company wanted to cover the incidents and to protect the officer because he brought big
profits to the company.

Before the settlement was to be signed, A found out and informed E that the officer had
previously harassed and abused other employees of the company. E was then approached by
other victims and was in a dilemma whether to accept the settlement or to publicize the
harassments in order to prevent further harassment. E sought advice from A.
 CASE STUDY 2
BRIEF FACTS

An Advocate (A) was appointed a contract and document administrator in a

negotiation between some Plaintiffs (P) and Defendants(D) in a contractual matter
which involved their lawyers and representatives. During his appointment as such,
he had access to confidential information regarding the negotiations and the
parties’ businesses. Disputes arose during the negotiations and he was
approached to try to mediate and bring about a resolution. The negotiations failed.

A then acted for P to sue D regarding the contractual matter. D filed an application
to discharge A from acting in the matter. A denied the allegations made against
him and that he was merely an observer and administrator. The facts showed that
during the negotiations he was taking sides.
 CASE STUDY 3
BRIEF FACTS (Part 1)

Since 1991 the Solicitor (S) acted for a Client (C), an illiterate housewife, in her
negligence claim against insurers of a barge which sank and her husband died in that
accident. In 1992 there was an out of court settlement and she received RM1.8 m
which was paid into her bank account. Since then, C and her family had come to rely
and depend on S for their legal and financial matters and advice.

In April 2005, S instructed C to withdraw RM800,000.00 from her account and to

be deposited into his firm’s account and borrowed RM600,000.00 with a promise to
pay her interest of RM6,400.00 per month. Subsequently he repaid RM100,000.00
but stopped paying in 2008 as he had financial difficulties. In June 2010 C lodged a
complaint against S under the Legal Profession Act after he stopped paying the
interest and still owed RM500,000.00 to her.
 CASE STUDY 3
BRIEF FACTS (Part 2)

The Disciplinary Committee, set up to hear the complaint, was of the view that
at the time of the loan C was no longer a client and hence there was no
solicitor-client relationship but found S had failed to conduct himself in a
professional manner, knowing there was a conflict of interest and failed to ask C
to seek legal advice before entering the loan. The Disciplinary Committee
recommended that S be fined a sum of RM1,000.00 but the Disciplinary Board
increase the fine to RM50,000.00. S being unhappy with the decisions and
penalty, filed an OS to the High Court which dismissed the application. S then
appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decisions of the Disciplinary
Board and the High Court.