When the Bar Council Gives a Standard Template Reply

 

 Does Anyone Actually Read Your Email on Procedural Fairness?

In April 2026 I wrote to the Malaysian Bar Council Secretariat. I was not asking them to handle my case. I was not asking for legal advice on my specific facts. I simply wanted their expert opinion on two universal principles:

 

i.                    Procedural fairness / natural justice – Is it acceptable for members of an Advocates Inquiry Committee who never attended the hearing, never heard the evidence, and never listened to the submissions to still sign the final decision as if they had participated? 

ii.                  Access to justice – When a B40 person (someone receiving RM100 monthly SARA aid) wants to file a fresh complaint, should the RM100 filing fee plus printing and related costs become a real barrier?

 

I started my email by expressly acknowledging that the Bar Council has no jurisdiction over Sabah advocates and that the Sabah Law Society is the correct body. I was only seeking general guidance on principles that apply everywhere in Malaysia.

Here is exactly what I wrote:

Request for Opinion on Procedural Fairness in Sabah Advocates Inquiry Committee Proceedings

 

Dear Bar Council Secretariat, I hope this email finds you well.

 

My name is Luqman Michel @ Michael Palany, and I am writing from Sabah. I understand that the Malaysian Bar Council does not have jurisdiction over legal practitioners in Sabah, as the Sabah Law Society oversees matters there. However, I would greatly appreciate the Bar Council’s expert opinion on an important issue concerning procedural fairness and access to justice.  In 2021, I filed a complaint with the Advocates Inquiry Committee in Kota Kinabalu. Upon receiving the Committee’s findings, I noticed the use of two different signature pages: one reflecting only the members who actually attended the hearing, and another that included signatures of absent members who did not participate. This practice was acknowledged by the Committee as their standard procedure.  I am concerned that this raises serious questions about natural justice, particularly whether members who did not hear the evidence or submissions should form part of the decision-making majority.  Additionally, as a B40 recipient of RM100 monthly SARA aid, I am now facing a new potential complaint where the filing fee (RM100 plus printing and related costs) presents a significant financial barrier.  For your reference, I have written about this in detail here: LINK

 

While I fully respect the jurisdictional boundaries, I believe the principles of procedural fairness and access to justice are universal. I would be most grateful if the Bar Council could share its views or any relevant guidance on these matters.  Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to any insights you may be able to provide.

Best regards,

Luqman Michel

 

Here is the Bar Council’s reply (received the same morning):

Dear Sir,

 

Greetings from the Malaysian Bar.  We refer to your email below.

We regret to inform you that the Malaysian Bar is not in a position to provide legal advice in the case of specific enquiries, such as yours.  We suggest that you engage the services of a lawyer who can look into all the relevant facts of the situation and then advise you accordingly.

In the interest of fairness and impartiality, we are unable to recommend any particular lawyer or law firm from among the more than 24,000 Members of the Malaysian Bar.

However, the following information is available at the Malaysian Bar website (http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/):

     A listing of all lawyers: https://legaldirectory.malaysianbar.org.my

    A listing of all law firms:  https://legaldirectory.malaysianbar.org.my

    A listing of law firms that have paid to advertise their areas of practice:  https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/list/find/law-firms-areas-of-practice/-introduction

 

If you are unable to afford to engage a lawyer, you may contact one of the Bar Council’s Legal Aid Centres.  Details are available at our website:  https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/public/legal-aid/bc-legal-aid-scheme/find-legal-aid-centres/find-legal-aid-centres.  However, please be advised that the Legal Aid Centres can only provide legal assistance in certain types of legal matters and that only persons who satisfy the means test will qualify to receive assistance.

We hope this information is useful, and we wish you all the best.

Thank you and best regards,

Malaysian Bar Secretariat

Wisma Badan Peguam Malaysia

2 Leboh Pasar Besar

50050 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

 

My Honest Reflection (and what an independent observer also noticed). The reply is a textbook standard template. It contains the usual polite language that every Bar Council secretariat uses when they receive anything that touches on complaints, inquiries, or procedural concerns:

“We regret to inform you that the Malaysian Bar is not in a position to provide legal advice…” 

Suggestions to engage a lawyer / check the legal directory / apply for legal aid.

 

The problem? I never asked for legal advice on my specific case. I never asked them to intervene. I never even asked them to comment on the Sabah Inquiry Committee’s actual decision. I asked only for their views on general principles of natural justice and access to justice.

This raises an important educational question for every ordinary Malaysian who tries to engage with our institutions:

When a citizen writes a courteous, well-researched letter that carefully respects jurisdictional boundaries, does the institution actually read the substance — or does it simply trigger the safest “see a lawyer” auto-reply?

In this case, the Bar Council’s response did not address a single point I raised. The two different signature pages, the absent members signing decisions, the financial barrier for B40 complainants — none of it was acknowledged.

Why This Matters (Educational Points) Natural Justice 101

One of the most basic rules of natural justice is that the people who decide must be the people who heard the evidence. In quasi-judicial bodies like Inquiry Committees, this principle is not optional. If the Bar Council had simply said “We do not comment on other bodies’ procedures” or “The general principle is that only those who participated should decide,” that would have been a substantive (even if brief) answer. A template reply tells us nothing.

Access to Justice for the B40

The cost of filing a complaint should not silently exclude the poorest Malaysians from seeking redress. When even the national Bar Council routes a B40 citizen straight to “engage a lawyer” or “legal aid” without acknowledging the barrier, it highlights a systemic gap.

Institutional Culture

Regulatory bodies worldwide use these templates to protect themselves from liability and precedent. That is understandable. But when the letter is written precisely to avoid those risks, the public is left wondering whether genuine engagement is possible at all.

 

This is not an attack on the Bar Council staff. They are following standard operating procedure. The real issue is whether that procedure serves the public interest when a citizen is genuinely seeking clarification on principles rather than personal legal advice.

I am publishing this post purely for educational purposes so that other ordinary citizens (especially in Sabah and Sarawak) understand what can happen when you try to discuss procedural fairness with national institutions.

If you have ever received a similar generic reply after writing a careful letter, you are not alone.

Comments are open.

Have you faced similar experiences with regulatory bodies? Do you think institutions should be required to give at least a short substantive acknowledgement when jurisdiction is expressly respected? I would value civil and constructive discussion.

Previous related post:

When Complaints Become Too Costly for the B40 LINK