CIVIL LITIGATION NEGLIGENCE AND THE MALAYSIAN ADVOCATE

Abstract

Civil litigation negligence now stands on a surer footingfollowing cases from Canada, England and elsewhere which lay emphasis on theadversarial system rather than the structure of the profession, and immunityhas now been almost completely abolished by judicial decisions. In Malaysia,the basis of legal professional liability is expected to be re-aligned to beconsistent with the other common law countries that have abolished immunity.The questions that necessitate consideration are therefore acts that wouldconstitute negligence and those that are excusable, the relevant defences, and,of course, the alternative sanctions to civil litigation for this type ofnegligence. The fused nature of the profession in Malaysia, perceived to bemore burdensome to its members, raises the question of the appropriate standardof the duty of skill and care.(For the purposes of this article an ‘advocate’ refers to theMalaysian (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 LegalProfession Act 1976.) {The writer is of the firm view that criminal casesshould be considered separately from civil cases because of the difference inthe law of procedure relating to the preparation of a case for presentation incourt and the public policy considerations peculiar to each type of case asseen in the approach taken by the House of Lords in Arthur J.S. Hall vSimons in which separate judgments were delivered for each type of case.And in Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180, a civil case, in whichthe New Zealand Court of Appeal did not consider the position in criminalcases.}