The Federal Court in a rare decision today upheld the Court of Appeal's decision to hold that senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah did not violate the Legal Professions Act publicity rules.

This goes against the Advocates and Solicitors Board's decision to impose a RM5,000 fine on Shafee for violating publicity rules following the publication of two articles in The Star in 2009.

Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif said they unanimously agree with the Court of Appeal's decision.

"In the context that were made there were no violations of the publicity rules. The appeal (by the Bar Council) is dismissed," he said.

Shafee initially asked for costs of RM300,000 from the Bar as "the Bar has to be taught a lesson in light of selective prosecution" against him, citing two other cases that he is facing.

However, Justice Raus only allowed costs of RM50000.

The other judges are Federal Court judges Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar, Hasan Lah, Azahar Mohamed and Court of Appeal judge Aziah Ali.

Shafee appeared for himself.

Lawyer Arthur Wang, who appeared for the Bar Council, said the decision of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board should be respected.

There were two other disciplinary cases against Shafie – one was a complaint lodged by Anwar Ibrahim against him to the board about the roadshow .

The other is his suit against the Bar, lawyer Tommy Thomas and former Court of Appeal judge VC George for tabling a motion calling for Shafee to be brought to the Bar's disciplinary board over misconduct in initiating the roadshow..

Malaysian Bar president Ragunath Kesavan had lodged a complaint against Shafee in 2010 following the publication of two articles that appeared in The Sunday Star titled 'Counsel rests his case' and 'Keeping within the letter of the law' .

Following a hearing with the disciplinary committee, the board in 2012 imposed a fine of RM5,000 on Shafee, which is to be channelled into the disciplinary fund.

Shafie filed a judicial review application to set aside the board's decision in November 2012 and claimed that the disciplinary committee's recommendations on the complaint by Ragunath based on the LPA (Legal Profession Act 1976) prejudiced him.

However, Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Justice Zaleha Yusof in 2014 found it unnecessary “to disturb” the Bar Council’s findings.

"I've read the article, I agree with the words 'top lawyer with the high-profile firm' were all the reporter's words and not of the applicant (Shafee).

“(But) I also agree with the respondent that the article did contain laudatory remarks and statements about the applicant and his firm, which was beyond the scope or approved information allowed by the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001.

The Court of Appeal, however, on July 23, last year overturned the High Court decision and set aside the fine.

Shafee says he is an expert

Wang, in appealing the Court of Appeal decision, said Shafee violated the publicity rules because in the articles he claimed to be a world expert on mutual legal assistance and also election petition cases.

“Under the publicity rules, it is clearly stipulated that you cannot say you are the best or an expert or 'a world expert on extradition' and you cannot say you are a specialist.

“Such loaded statements should not be made,” said the counsel appearing for the Bar.

Wang said if Shafee knows that the article would be worded that way, then he should withdraw himself from making those statements.

He reiterated that the findings of the board in fining Shafee should not be disturbed unless there is clear case where the board is found to have an unprofessional conduct.

Shafee in his submissions today told the apex court that he was merely replying to questions from the journalist Shahnaz Sher Habib, who thinks that he was merely an expert in criminal cases.

He said the journalist knew of him having represented former land and cooperatives minister Kasitah Gaddam and former Perwaja chairperson Eric Chia and senior lawyer Balwant Singh.

“I told her that 70 percent of the cases where I appeared are civil cases and 30 percent are criminal. Furthermore, I was replying to her suggestion or questions that I had links or had bribed judges.

“I told her of my vast experience in handling election petition cases like the Wee Choo Keong case and told her that while I was with the attorney-general's chambers I had helped draft extradition laws with then solicitor-general Zakaria Yatim.”

Shafee then showed to the panel the various extradition cases in which he had appeared and said he was one of four lawyers in the world who did extradition cases.

He added that he had no intention to advertise but to rebut any attempt to the suggestion by the journalist that he had bribed judges.

“I can only stop advertisement but I cannot stop a feature article as it is subject to copyright of Shahnaz and The Star,” he said.

Training his sight on the Bar Council, Shafee asked why is he being targeted for action while no action was taken against other lawyers who had also appeared in various publications.

Wang replied that the words “expert” or “best” or “specialist” were not used in those publications.

Outside the court, he said it is rare for the apex court to go against the decision of the board.

Shafee described the case as a landmark case for a lawyer to go against the Bar Council at the Federal Court.