Fabricated Evidence and the Lawyer’s Duty

                                                                  

🚫 Lawyers and False Documents: Integrity Is Non‑Negotiable

Imagine this: A client slides an affidavit across the desk and says, “Just file this — no one will know.” The lawyer spots the falsehood immediately. At that moment, the choice is stark: comply and risk professional ruin, or uphold the duty to the court and refuse.

 

This scenario is exactly what Malaysian law and ethics anticipate — and strictly forbid.

 

⚖️ Professional Ethics: Duty Above All

Under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (Section 94), misconduct includes:

 

Conduct unbefitting a lawyer

 

Actions that bring the profession into disrepute

 

Breaches of practice and etiquette rules

 

The Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 sharpen this further:

 

Lawyers must maintain respect for the court.

 

Lawyers must avoid deception or misleading the court.

 

👉 The overriding principle: a lawyer’s duty to the court outweighs their duty to the client. If a client insists on filing false affidavits, pleadings, or statutory declarations, the lawyer must refuse — and may even need to withdraw from representation.

 

Disciplinary consequences include:

 

Suspension

 

Striking off the Roll

 

Fines

 

Reprimands

 

These are not symbolic penalties. They are the profession’s safeguard against erosion of public trust.

 

🚨 Criminal Liability: When Falsehood Becomes Fraud

Professional discipline is only half the story. If a false document is intended to deceive — whether in court, official proceedings, or fraud — the Penal Code applies.

 

Sections 463–464: Forgery = making a false document with intent to cause damage, injury, or fraud.

 

Sections 415–420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

 

Sections 107–109 & 120A: Abetment and criminal conspiracy.

 

👉 Lawyers are not immune. Knowingly aiding in fraudulent documents exposes them to prosecution. Cases have shown that falsification for deceitful purposes leads to both disciplinary and criminal consequences.

 

🧭 Why This Matters

This prohibition isn’t just about lawyers — it’s about the administration of justice itself. If officers of the court were free to draft falsehoods, the entire system would collapse under mistrust.

 

Fabricated evidence, whether in affidavits, statutory declarations, or survey documents, corrodes accountability. Once falsehoods enter the record, they distort outcomes and erode confidence in institutions.

 

✅ The Takeaway

Malaysian law and ethics strictly forbid lawyers from preparing false documents.

 

The duty to the court always comes first.

 

Lawyers must refuse instructions involving known falsehoods — and withdraw if necessary.

 

Both disciplinary boards and criminal courts stand ready to enforce consequences.

 

Integrity is non‑negotiable. The legal profession survives only if truth remains its foundation.