Dear Ms Celeste Goh Jing Xin,

We refer to your email dated 26.5.2016.

Please be informed that our Mr Yaacob Bin Bakanali has been practicing since March 1991.
He has vast experience in litigation and conveyancing matters especially in respect of loan
documentation transactions. We enclosed herewith our Firm’s Profile together with the
Indemnity Insurance of RM5 million and Practicing Certificates for all lawyers for the year
2016 for your attention.

In respect of your query under item (2) as to the reprimand order dated 20.6.2015 by the
Malaysian Bar, our explanations are as follows:-

BACKGROUND FACTS

Facts pertaining to the reprimand order by the Bar Council Disciplinary Board on
20.6.2015 are as follows:-

1. The complaint related to a legal action initiated by Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli against
a legal firm known as Messrs Wan Rohimi & Asmadi (Complainant) which initially
had acted as solicitors for 354 Plaintiffs to initiate legal proceedings against
Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (Felda) and 2 others for damages under
Suit No. 22-85-2002 (the Felda suit).

2. On 13.1.2008 the Plaintiffs through the Complainant had obtained judgment

against Felda and 2 others for payment of damages in the sum of RM7,810,000.00
together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 24.9.2002 up till full settlement
and costs.

3. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 13.1.2008, Felda and 2 others had paid the
judgment sum and interest all totalling RM11,236,983.00 into a joint account under
the name of the respective solicitors of the Plaintiffs and for FELDA namely Messrs
Wong Lu Peen & Tunku Alina and the Complainant. In addition Felda also has paid
an additional sum of RM85,589.00 being the interest from 19.3.2008 until 7.5.2008.
Hence the total sum paid to the Complainant then was RM11,322,592.00 (the
judgment sum).

4. From the said judgment sum of RM11,322,592.00 the Complainant had paid a sum
of RM19,000.00 to each of the 354 Plaintiffs totalling RM6,726,000.00 leaving a
balance of RM4,510,983.00 and the additional interest of RM85,589.00 and costs in
the possession of the Complainant.

5. The Plaintiffs made attempts to have the balance judgment sum paid to all the
Plaintiffs but the Complainant had failed to respond to their request therein.

6. Thereon the Plaintiffs on recommendation of the Legal Officer of FELDA, appointed a

new firm of solicitors, Messrs Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli to act for them wherein vide
letters dated 23.6.2011, 29.6.2011, 12.7.2011 and 18.7.2011 the Plaintiffs had
through their solicitors demanded from the Complainant the settlement of the
balance of the judgment sum but of no avail.

7. After all attempts failed, the Plaintiffs had initiated a legal action against the
Complainant in Kota Bharu High Court vide Writ of Summons No.22-146-07/2011
pursuant to the provision of Order 43 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and/or
Rules of Court 2012 for an account to be taken on the said judgment sum in the
Felda suit and other related prayers therein.

8. Upon conclusion of the trial and hearing of submissions from both parties on
14.10.2014 the learned High Court Judge had allowed part of the Plaintiffs’ claim
 under para 23(b)(v) Statement of Claim by ordering the Complainant to pay each of
the Plaintiffs an additional sum of RM3,468.00 and dismissed the claim by the
Plaintiffs for an account to be taken under Order 43, Rules 1 of the Rules of the
High Court 1980 and/or Rules of Court 2012 with costs in the sum of RM10,000.00
to be paid by the Complainant to the Plaintiffs.

9. The Plaintiffs and the Complainant both lodged separate appeals to the Court of
Appeal against the decision of the the learned High Court Judge under Civil Appeal
No. D-02-1850-10-2014 & D-02-1881-11-2014.

10. Both the Appeals were heard together on 27.10.2015 wherein the Court of Appeal
had unanimously allowed the Plaintiffs appeal and dismissed the Complainant’s
appeal with costs. The Court of Appeal had ordered that an account to be taken on
the balance judgment sum held by the Complainant as the then solicitors for the
Plaintiffs.

11. Against the background of the above facts, the Complainant Messrs Wan Rohimi &
Asmadi made a complaint to the Bar Council Disciplinary Board under Rule 54 (1)
Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 alleging that we did not secure
their consent when we took over the FELDA matter on behalf of the 271 FELDA
settlers (the Plaintiffs) and proceeded with taxation of the legal costs at the High
Court.

12. Messrs Wan Rohimi & Asmadi also raised similar objection in the High Court
wherein the objection was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 16.4.2014.

13. Upon hearing the parties, the Disciplinary Board of the Bar Council found that there
was non-compliance with Rule 54 (1) Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules
1978 by our firm despite our explanation that the refusal of the Complainant to
cooperate in the matter wherein we were supposed to take over conduct for the 271
Plaintiffs rendered the obtaining of consent was impossible. Nevertheless for the
interest of justice, we proceeded to act on behalf of the 271 Plaintiffs. For this, we
were reprimanded and the Disciplinary Board decided to maintain the reprimand
order as proposed by the Disciplinary Committee. We enclosed herewith extract of
finding by the Disciplinary Committee for your attention.

We reiterate that we did not commit any act of misconduct which affected our clients or
their interest therein. It was a merely technical non-compliance cause by the Complainant’s
refusal to respond to our letters. In fact our act of pursuing our clients’ interest against
their former lawyers who unlawfully retained huge amount of the clients’ judgment sum on
the pretext of legal fees led to the said complaint by their former lawyers whom were being
sued. It was a technical non-compliance by the solicitor in charge of the file En. Azmer Bin
Md Saad for which all other partners were reprimanded.

Sincerely,

Mohd Yaacob Bin Bakanali

Partner of Messrs Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli