Bhavanash Sharma v Jogmohan Singh [2025] MLRAU 266
Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeal reinforced the safeguards under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”)[1], drawing a firm line against arrangements that allow non-lawyers to profit from legal proceedings.
The case of Bhavanash Sharma v Jogmohan Singh [2025] MLRAU 266[2] concerned whether a “consultant” could claim a portion of settlement sums (RM240,000.00) as fees for appointing lawyers and providing legal advice in a corporate debt recovery dispute.
Key Facts
- The respondent, a consultant with no practising certificate, entered into an agreement with the appellant-lawyer to manage a company’s litigation portfolio.
- The arrangement included a 10% contingency fee on sums recovered in settlement (RM240,000.00), to be split between the consultant and the counsel.
- Both the Sessions Court and High Court upheld the claim, finding no breach of the LPA.
Court of Appeal’s Findings
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that:
- Contravention of Sections 37 & 40 LPA
- The respondent, as an unauthorised person, performed acts which include handling internal legal portfolio, providing legal advice, drafting contracts, recommending counsel are considered as the practice of law, which are prohibited under Section 37 LPA[3].
- Section 40 LPA[4] prohibits any payment for acts done in contravention of Section 37 LPA. The respondent sought to claim RM240,000.00 from the settlement, but as an unauthorised person, he could not lawfully recover fees for these services.
- The Court cited Darshan Singh Khaira v Majlis Peguam Malaysia [2021] 6 MLRA 266[5], which adopted Australian precedents, affirming that giving legal advice for reward lies “at the very centre of the practice of law” and must remain within the domain of qualified lawyers.
- Touting Arrangement Prohibited
- Rule 51 of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978[6] prohibits touting, which is defined as procuring legal works in exchange for remuneration.
- According to the case of Balakrishnan A/L Devaraj v Patwant Singh A/L Niranjan Singh And Anor [2004] MLJU 724[7], a person is considered a tout if they procure a lawyer’s employment and receive payment from the lawyer for doing so. Gratuitous advice or referrals, where no payment is received, do not constitute touting.
- The respondent appointed the appellant as counsel and sought a “consultancy fee” (half of the legal fees) in return. This arrangement was based solely on remuneration rather than the lawyer’s competence or price. The Court held that this constituted touting, which undermines professional standards, public interest and the administration of justice.
- Public Policy Considerations
- The Court emphasised that allowing non-lawyers to claim fees or act in legal matters undermines professional standards and public trust.
- Illegal arrangements such as fee-sharing or touting are void under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.[8]
Consequential Orders
While the appeal was allowed, the Court refused to refund the RM240,000.00 to the appellant-lawyer, applying the doctrine of pari delicto, holding both parties equally at fault. Instead, the court directed that the funds be released to the intervener, Martech’s principal, as a matter of equity.
Why This Case Matters
This ruling is a landmark clarification on:
- The limits of consultancy roles in legal disputes, clarifying that non-lawyers cannot provide legal services for reward.
- The prohibition of fee-sharing and touting in the legal profession.
- The importance of public policy safeguards in ensuring only qualified advocates and solicitors may lawfully practise law and recover fees.
It serves as a reminder to practitioners and corporations alike: legal services must remain strictly within the bounds of the LPA. Attempts to circumvent the Act through consultancy arrangements will be struck down as illegal and unenforceable.
The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm. Should you have any legal queries, corporate or otherwise, please feel free to reach out to the firm for further assistance.
Authored by : Yong Zi Ling
Reviewed by : Siow Chan Wai, Shawn
For further legal advice on Legal Profession & Professional Conduct, please contact us, Y Kong, Wong & Partners.
[1] Legal Profession Act 1976.
[2] Bhavanash Sharma v Jogmohan Singh [2025] MLRAU 266.
[3] Legal Profession Act 1976, s 37.
[4] Legal Profession Act 1976, s 40.
[5] Darshan Singh Khaira v Majlis Peguam Malaysia [2021] 6 MLRA 266.
[6] Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978, r 51.
[7] Balakrishnan A/L Devaraj v Patwant Singh A/L Niranjan Singh And Anor [2004] MLJU 724.
[8] Contracts Act 1950, s 24.