Elephant in the room

Complaint about lawyers acting on instruction of a bankrupt

In the case of UG Management Services Sdn Bhd (UGMS) vs.Salcon Engineering Bhd (SEB) Suit no. BKI-22NCvC -122/11-2015 (HC2) instructions were given to two senior lawyers by a Bankrupt Mr.Goh Su Khung (Goh).

Both the above mentioned lawyers were aware that Goh was a bankrupt at the point of taking instructions from him as Advisor of UGMS. I was brought along by Goh to brief both the lawyers.

On 16.1.2019 in a response to my email, one of the lawyers had said the following: “As an advocate and solicitor in Sabah I am guided and bound by the rules of etiquette and conduct set by the law.”

As advocates and solicitors in Sabah and guided by the rules of etiquette and conduct set by the law why did both the lawyers act for Goh whom they both knew to be a bankrupt when they ought to know the regulations of the insolvency department.

In the witness statement by Goh Su Khung here are some of the Q&A.

Q “What is your position in the Plaintiff?”

A “I hold the position of advisor”.

Q “You are adjudged a bankrupt on 11.12.2014?”

A  “Yes.”

Q “And you were still holding a position in the Plaintiff after you were adjudged a bankrupt.

A

Lawyer: This question can be incriminating and on top of that it is not relevant to this case.

Is this lawyer exempted from abiding by the rules of etiquette and conduct set by the law?

Could this be why my request for the order/judgment of the above case was not extended to me by the lawyer concerned who said that he does not want to be implicated by extending me a copy?

I am still thinking as to how a lawyer can be incriminated for extending me a copy of a judgment.  

Note: I checked with the insolvency department and it confirms that Goh is still a bankrupt and that no permission was ever asked for nor granted to Goh to work in any organisation. 

UGMS has since changed its name to Terra Environment Management Sdn Bhd.