‘This decision to the reasonable man on the street is a strange contrast – with the benign interpretation given by the Federal Court when it refused to disqualify a certain lawyer with close ties to the powers that be acting as ad-hoc deputy public prosecutor in a government’s application!’
Consumerist: Malaysia Limping From One Controversy To Another In Shame?
I have already accepted the sad fact that we have gone into a tunnel of darkness where professionalism, integrity and ethics have become victims of political expediency!
IF one thought MH370 would have caused serious pause reflection and rethink – you are wrong – as – it is business as usual and ‘damm the world?’
And so a dangerous precedent was set by the High Court today recently when it barred a certain lawyer from representing his client on the grounds of conflict of interest as both are from the same political party!
I have heard enough about the bench in recent years and I am again shocked and seek questions whether the judge who made the ruling was not made aware of the provision in the Etiquette Rules under the Legal Profession Act?
Even a first year law student knows that the said ruling was in the public interest to prevent a family member from appearing in cases where the lawyer was in conflict of interest and stood to gain from the outcome of a civil action!
How does one claim that one cannot maintain professional independence due to conflict of interest as required under rule 5 of the Etiquette Rules without showing evidence of it?
As I see it this ruling which was vague and tenuous had serious repercussions as many lawyers who were politicians would now be technically barred.
This decision to the reasonable man on the street is a strange contrast – with the benign interpretation given by the Federal Court when it refused to disqualify a certain lawyer with close ties to the powers that be acting as ad-hoc deputy public prosecutor in a government’s application!
This is not isolated and when seen with other cases in recent years an appeal is paramount in view the ramifications of this judgment!
Many learned individuals today hold the position that the bench has absolutely no business deciding who is representing whom.
This is not only a bad decision , it is an affront to the entire Bar.
As I understand, the right to legal representation is an absolute and unconditional right circumscribed by rules set by the Bar Council under the Legal Profession Act , and believe me – judges have nothing to do with that!
Their job is to close their eyes, hear and decide on the facts and the law before them, not WHO is standing before them.
The right thing to do was to proceed to hear ask for submissions on the matter and decide at the end of the trial.
UNLESS – there is something else at play here?