The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has fixed Oct 6 to hear the Bar Council's appeal against the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board's decision to let senior lawyer Cecil Abraham off the hook for alleged misconduct.

The date was fixed by the court's senior assistant registrar, Nurul Aini Yahya, today. Melissa Lim represented the Bar while Cecil was represented by Rishwant Singh.

The matter will be heard by Justice Hanipah Farikullah.

The Bar filed an application for leave in April to appeal the board's March 11 decision clearing Cecil of alleged misconduct over the allegation of drafting P Balasubramaniam's second statutory declaration (SD).

It wanted the March 11 decision to be set aside and for the court to find Cecil liable for misconduct within the meaning of Section 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

The Bar secretary, Karen Cheah, gave 12 grounds of appeal namely:

  • The committee and board failed to consider that in all his correspondence, Cecil did not deny the complaint but chose to stay silent and claimed privileged communication;
     
  • The committee and board failed to consider the circumstantial evidence, coupled with all direct evidence, that pointed to admissions on two separate occasions by Cecil to drafting and being responsible for drafting the second SD;
     
  • The committee and board failed to consider the testimony from three of Cecil's witnesses, lawyers who allegedly had a close relationship with Cecil, and their evidence contradicted their earlier letters to the complainant;
     
  • The committee and board failed to consider the motives behind the evidence given by Cecil's witnesses;

  • The committee and board failed to consider that a former Malaysian Bar president who was one of Cecil's witnesses did not lodge a complaint against him;
     
  • The committee and board failed to appreciate that Cecil never called Johari Razak to testify for fear that Johari might reveal that he drafted the second SD or give other damaging evidence. Johari, who is also a lawyer, is the younger brother of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak;
     
  • The committee and board failed to attach sufficient weight of evidence given by senior lawyer Tommy Thomas, to events that happened at the Renaissance Hotel where Cecil allegedly made the first admission at a wedding of a judge's son;
     
  • The committee and board failed to attach evidence by Americk Sidhu with regard to a meeting made between him and Cecil on Feb 28, 2013;
     
  • The committee and board placed inappropriate weight or emphasis that the Bar had not lodged a similar complaint against Sunil Abraham, who is Cecil's son;
     
  • The committee and board gave little or no weight to the evidence that Cecil refused to take any steps to defend his reputation;
     
  • The committee and board failed to consider the evidence that Cecil abandoned his solicitor-client privilege line and came about to expressly deny involvement in the second SD only after carpet businessman Deepak Jaikishian discontinued his defamation suit against the prime minister and all matters relating to Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, and the significant change of stance of Cecil; and
     
  • The committee and board failed to appreciate despite the differences in drafting and being responsible for drafting the SD, (that) both are capable of leading to solicitor's misconduct.