THE Federal Court has reinstated the fine of RM10,000 imposed 13 years ago by the advocates and solicitors’ disciplinary board on former lawyer A. Sivanesan – now a Perak state executive council member – for professional misconduct. 

This followed a decision by a three-member panel comprising Justices Nallini Pathmanathan, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat and Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal to allow appeals by the Malaysian Bar and K. Pathmanathan. 

The Malaysian Bar and Pathmanathan were appealing against the verdict of the Court of Appeal, made on December 15 last year, which overturned the High Court’s move to uphold the disciplinary board’s decision. 

In today’s conclusion, Justice Nallini said the Court of Appeal should be slow to intervene with regard to the findings made by the disciplinary committee of the advocates and solicitors’ disciplinary board. 

The industrial court’s notes of the proceeding and the award confirmed the basis for the disciplinary committee’s findings, she said, adding that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to reverse the disciplinary committee’s findings with regard to the events on April 6, 2010, solely on the evidence of another witness.  

Justice Nallini said the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate that Sivanesan was acting for Pathmanathan and even gave the undertaking to file forms necessary for his appointment, despite not having instructions to do so. 

“Therefore, the disciplinary committee was justified in coming to its findings,” she said.  

Justice Nallini said Sivanesan, who is the Sungkai assemblyman, ought to have communicated to Pathmanathan regarding the new hearing date that was fixed by the industrial court, but failed to do so. 

The court awarded RM20,000 in costs to Pathmanathan. 

In February 2021, the High Court upheld the findings of the disciplinary board, which found Sivanesan guilty of professional misconduct. It made the decision after considering the disciplinary committee’s recommendation.  

The disciplinary proceedings had alleged several breaches by Sivanesan of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and its etiquette rules, which included among others, deceiving the industrial court into believing that he was acting for Pathmanathan. 

On June 13, 2016, Pathmanathan filed a complaint against Sivanesan after the industrial court struck off his claim for unfair dismissal due to his absence in court. 

He claimed, among others, that Sivanesan failed to inform him of the hearing date.  

Sivanesan was represented by a team of lawyers led by R. Kengadharan, while lawyer Heng Yee Keat appeared for the Malaysian Bar. Pathmanathan represented himself. – Bernama, February 13, 2023.