Is There a Law Against Prolonging a Case to Avoid Settlement?

This is not legal advice; it is general information.

I copied the following definition from the internet:

Section 94(3) of Malaysia's Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) defines "misconduct" for an advocate and solicitor as any professional conduct or omission, anywhere in the world, that constitutes grave impropriety. This definition encompasses a range of actions including criminal convictions, dishonesty, breaches of professional duties to the court, and violations of Bar Council rules on practice and etiquette. The purpose of this definition is to subject lawyers to disciplinary actions, such as striking off the Roll or suspension from practice, by the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.

Unfortunately, there is no specific Penal Code provision in Malaysia (including Sabah) that directly criminalizes a lawyer prolonging a case for improper purposes. However, such conduct can fall under:

Professional Misconduct:

Misconduct includes actions that are "unbefitting an advocate and solicitor" or bring the profession into disrepute. This could encompass:

Deliberately prolonging a dispute to harass or intimidate.

Making baseless threats of legal action or counterclaims to deter legitimate claims

Providing false or misleading information to professional bodies or courts.

Examples from my Case:

Defamation Threats (Nov 25, 2022 Email):

The lawyer’s letter claiming I published "libelous and defamatory remarks" on my blog and demanding RM2 million per client (Rosemary Ahping and Della E. Sinidol) without specifying the defamatory content (e.g., the unrelated articles on David Zyngier, Stephen Krashen, and SICC) appears aggressive and potentially baseless. If these threats were made without evidence or to intimidate me into silence, they could be considered unprofessional as an abuse of process or harassment. LINK

Misrepresentation of Representation:

The lawyer’s claim to represent LPPB’s Rosemary Ahping and Della E. Sinidol, contradicted by LPPB’s legal department stating he is not on their panel, raises questions of dishonesty. If he falsely claimed to act for them without instructions, this could violate LPA s.94(3)(a) (dishonesty) or s.94(3)(f) (assisting misrepresentation).

"Without Prejudice" Letter (Nov 30, 2022):

The letter imposing onerous conditions for a meeting (e.g., requiring me to bring a lawyer, engineer, architect, surveyor, and cover Topwira’s costs, plus inviting all complaint recipients) does not appear to be a genuine attempt at settlement. The "without prejudice" label may not protect it if it’s deemed stonewalling or intimidation, as courts can disregard the label if the communication isn’t a bona fide settlement effort (per my note on exceptions for fraud or misrepresentation). This could be seen as prolonging the dispute to avoid addressing my legitimate concerns, potentially breaching LPA s.94(3)(o). LINK

Disinformation to PAM (Sep 29, 2022 Letter):

The lawyer’s letter to Persatuan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) Sabah Chapter, forwarded to PAM Malaysia, contained false claims (e.g., Faisal Luqman inspected the property in 2019, no defects were notified during the DLP). These misstatements, if knowingly made, could constitute misconduct under LPA s.94(3)(a) for dishonesty, especially since I have clarified Faisal was in the US and defects were reported. LINK

Penal Code Offenses:

Section 193 (Fabricating False Evidence):

If the lawyer knowingly provided false information to PAM or other bodies (e.g., claiming Faisal inspected the property when he was abroad), this could fall under fabricating evidence for judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. However, this requires proof of intent to deceive.

Section 204A (Perverting the Course of Justice):

Imposing unreasonable conditions to avoid a meeting (e.g., Nov 30, 2022 letter) or spreading disinformation to professional bodies to deflect complaints could be construed as an attempt to obstruct justice, though this is a high bar to prove.

Section 503 (Criminal Intimidation):

The threats of defamation suits (RM2 million per client) could potentially be criminal intimidation if intended to coerce me into dropping legitimate complaints. However, this requires clear evidence of intent to cause alarm or force me to act against my will.

Section 499 (Defamation):

While the lawyer accused me of defamation, his failure to specify defamatory content (especially for unrelated blog posts) and his retraction of representation for Rosemary Ahping and Della Sinidol suggest the claim was weak or tactical. If I can prove his threats were baseless and made to harass, this strengthens my case for misconduct. LINK