Media’s praise of lawyers is not professional misconduct
Recent Federal Court ruling clarifies boundaries that a counsel has to observe in order not to breach rules on publicity under the legal profession, says S N Nair.
KUALA LUMPUR: A Federal Court ruling appears to suggest that lawyers cannot be faulted if the media make laudatory remarks, heap praise for their expertise and experience in law.
Lawyer S N Nair said the judgment by a five-man bench was a good ruling as it was clear and unequivocally put to rest the boundaries that a counsel has to observe in order not to breach rules on publicity under the legal profession in Malaysia.
“The ruling confirms that the court has clarified the legal position in respect of lawyers getting publicity and making press statements,” he told FMT.
This pronouncement is also a timely guidance to about 17,000 lawyers in the peninsular, he added.
Nair said this in response to a recent judgment which affirmed Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah did not breach the 2001 rules.
“In all fairness and in principle, I believe that the court was right in Shafee’s case,” Nair said of the lawyer with whom he had crossed swords many times in court.
The Bar Council had complained to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board over two articles featured in a national daily, published in both the print and online versions, in late 2009.
The council had contended that the reference to Shafee as a “top lawyer” and “high profile lawyer” in the newspaper in an interview would be construed as inducement for professional means.
It said the reference in the online report that Shafee was also an expert in certain areas of the law was a violation of the rules.
The board then found Shafee guilty of professional misconduct and fined him RM5,000. The High Court had later upheld the ruling.
However, the Federal Court had upheld the findings of the Court of Appeal, which had found Shafee not guilty.
Judge Raus Sharif, who wrote the judgment, said the laudatory remarks reflected the journalist’s own opinion which Shafee could not have prevented.
The bench said the context of the article must be viewed as a whole and balanced against catchphrases which formed part of the journalist’s writing skills.
“As Shafee had not publicised his name or his legal firm, he has not infringed the rules,” Raus said.
As for the article that appeared online, the bench said Shafee’s reference of his expertise in specific areas of law could fall within the ambit of approved information which could be given to the media.
“Although the remarks were laudatory, it did not automatically lead to the conclusion that rules had been breached.
“The statements have to be read within the context of the entire article and surrounding circumstances,” Raus added.