JUDGMENT
[1] The appeal before us centres on the application of s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA), that is, whether an advocate and solicitor should be given the opportunity to be heard before the Disciplinary Board (DB) makes an order that is likely to be adverse against him if the DB intends to impose a greater or lesser penalty or punishment than that recommended by the Disciplinary Committee (DC).
[2] The questions of law for our determination are as follows:
(i) Whether the 1st respondent (Syed) needs to be given the opportunity to be heard under s 103D(4) of the LPA when the DB has already reduced his penalty or punishment; and
(ii) Whether the word "adverse" under s 103D(4) of the LPA should be read in the context of "greater or lesser" under s 103D(2) of the LPA.
[3] On 10 April 2023 after having heard and considered the submissions of the respective Counsel for the parties, we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.
Factual Background
[4] The facts are not disputed. The factual background to this dispute was set out in the Judge's clear and comprehensive judgment. The 2nd Respondent, a developer, complained to the DB that Syed, an advocate and solicitor practicing as a sole proprietor in the firm of Messrs. Syed Anuar & Associates in Ipoh, Perak, had acted in a conflict of interest. Sometime in August 2012, the 2nd Respondent was engaged in a joint venture agreement (JVA) with Pintar Asiamas Sdn Bhd (the Landowner). The 2nd Respondent and Landowner agreed to develop Lot 40481, Mukim Hulu Kinta, Daerah Kinta. The 11 acres of land were alienated by the State Government of Perak to develop a housing scheme with 116 terrace housing lots.