CIVIL LITIGATION NEGLIGENCE AND THE MALAYSIAN ADVOCATE

Abstract

Civil litigation negligence now stands on a surer footing following cases from Canada, England and elsewhere which lay emphasis on the adversarial system rather than the structure of the profession, and immunity has now been almost completely abolished by judicial decisions. In Malaysia, the basis of legal professional liability is expected to be re-aligned to be consistent with the other common law countries that have abolished immunity. The questions that necessitate consideration are therefore acts that would constitute negligence and those that are excusable, the relevant defences, and, of course, the alternative sanctions to civil litigation for this type of negligence. The fused nature of the profession in Malaysia, perceived to be more burdensome to its members, raises the question of the appropriate standard of the duty of skill and care.

(For the purposes of this article an ‘advocate’ refers to the Malaysian (and Singaporean) lawyer, who as a member of a ‘true fused’ profession, engages in litigation or ‘contentious business’ as defined in s. 3 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.) {The writer is of the firm view that criminal cases should be considered separately from civil cases because of the difference in the law of procedure relating to the preparation of a case for presentation in court and the public policy considerations peculiar to each type of case as seen in the approach taken by the House of Lords in Arthur J.S. Hall v Simons in which separate judgments were delivered for each type of case. And in Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180, a civil case, in which the New Zealand Court of Appeal did not consider the position in criminal cases.}