A.

The Respondent is my Solicitor

1. I Somasundaram Arunachalam the Complainant in this matter approached the

Respondent to obtain legal advice pertaining to matters relating to my late
father Arunachalam Chettirs estate in the year 1999. After which I introduced my
entire family members to the Respondent. He was appointed as solicitor
acting for all the beneficiaries . Since then he had been advising us all in the
matter. I have been acting on his advice.

2. My father died leaving a will naming my brother AR.Sevugan, and my

brother inlaw Venkatachalam Venkatachalam as executors. They renounced their
executorships. On the advice of the Respondent that only Malaysian can be
appointed as administrator, my late father’s manager Mr Ganesan was be
appointed as Administrator .

3. Respondent acted for all of us. Respondent was involved in negotiation of

partitioning and distribution of the estate between the beneficiaries. He had
spent hours advising me and had taken instructions from me.

a. In the Email dated !3th August 2007 From Respondent to me where by he

taken instruction from me - Enclosure A1

“Kindly let us have your instruction”

b. Email Dated 13 December 2007 – Enclosure A2- advice from Respondent

th

pertaining to the Sale of Property-

c. Respondent prepared a Temporary Settlement Agreement in 2007 -

Enclosure A3

d. Email Dated 27 February 2008 -Enclosure A4- Negotiated the partitioning of

th

the property and the matters pertaining to the accounts .

e. Email dated 7 September 2008- Enclosure A5- Email which I sent after the
th

meeting I had with the Respondent on 5 September 2008pertaining to the

th

replacement of my brother Sevegan as Administrator which I had objected

and the advice and discussion pertaining to the distribution and accounts

f. Email dated 29 September 2008- Enclosure A6- Email from Respondent

th

pertaining to negotiation

g. Email dated 30 September 2008- Enclosure A7-Email from Respondent

th

advising me who can be substituted in place of Mr.Ganesan. He has stated

this
 “ You can of course appoint another attorney in place of Mr.Ganesan,
with the consent of all beneficiaries , as was done when Mr.Ganesan
was appointed” -

h. Email dated 16 December 2008 to the Respondent- Enclosure A8

th

“ As solicitor for all the Beneficiaries , you should act neutrally and not
take sides….”

i. Email dated 20 March 2009 - Enclosure A9- to Respondent after receiving

th

the Application to appoint my brother AR.Sevugan as administrator where I

had stated as follows:-

“I regret your procedure . I feel, you are a absolutely a solicitor to

Ar.Sevugan and not the beneficiaries at large . ………..

Only yesterday , I came to know about it, that too it came along with
the papers mailed by you. You say , it is oversightedness that has led
to this default. An easy word, Mr. Maridass, but totally irrelevant to the
gravity of the exposition. I feel……….you to cordon off this important
document. I did not expect such a behavior from you, Maridass. You
have opened my eyes. …………….

“…….I close this mail with a heavy heart.”

j. Email dated 6 February 2010 - Enclosure A10 from Respondent

th

“….They want me to settle the matter. I told them I have since my

return to Malaysia after my last trip to India been trying to settle this
matter……..

…I have given you people various ways to settle this matter……. I am

surprised you are not taking sufficient interest in this matter. Do you
know you have half share in this properties of your father’s estate? (The
entire clause j. belongs to the Estate of Muthappa Chettiar of Taiping.The purpose of
sending the copy of the email is to show that he was so transparent and exchanging
his views with me)
4. At all material the Respondent acted for all of us and never at any point
time denied this fact nor informed that he is acting only for the
administrator and not me. He has acted as my lawyer , negotiator and
mediator . Now he says that he is acting only for the administrator is not
acceptable. He has led me believe that he is lawyer for all of us . If he had
inform me that he is only acting for the Administrator then I would have
appointed my own lawyer to safe guard my interest.

B. My complaint is under section 94(3) (c ) and (n) of the Legal Profession

Act 1976 (Act 166) & Rules

1. Wrongfully withholding and releasing monies from sale of Property

a. The property held under Geran 45921 Lot 16156 Mukim Durian Sebatang
was sold vide sale and purchase agreement dated 16 March 2006.
th

b. The entire sale proceeds was settled by 18/09/2008 .- statement of account –

page 6.

c. The Administrator Ganesan Chettiar released 10% of the 1 installment

st

payments

d. On 28.6.2007 I had written a letter to the Respondent informing the amounts

to be released to me or would I would withdraw my consent.- page 10.

e. After which the Respondent released 2 and 3 installments to all the

nd rd

beneficiaries . The last amount was released in the month of April 2008.- page
7.

f. Further Respondent had confirmed vide email dated 29 Sept 2008 –

Enclosure A6

“pending finalization all monies will be held in my trust account. …”

……The agreement is in all three names as sellers. I have provided

for payments to be made to my account for distribution to the
three of you directly by. Mr.Sevugan has agreed to this……..”

g. Respondent promised that the monies will be released simultaneously to all

beneficiaries at the same time . My solicitors Lalchand & Nawawi had letters
dated 23/07/2010 and 7/9/10 has stated as follows:-

“ Further you assured our client that at any point of time, if the
money is released, it will be released to all the three beneficiaries
simultaneously”
 This was not denied by the Respondent and the Respondent did not respond
to any of the letters.

h. The Respondent had negotiated a settlement and had given assurance and
undertaking the monies will only be released on production of accounts by all
beneficiaries and that it that will distributed by him directly.

Email dated 29 September 2008- Enclosure A6

th

“ He and Meyappan will give me their accounts. Sevugan will send me

his accounts in about 10days time after he has srrived in India.

You have to send me yours for me to distribute to your brothers……”

i. Respondent contrary to the negotiated settlement had breached his

undertaking and released the monies (RM1,138,825.73) to the other
beneficiaries on 17 May 2010 and only withheld my portion– page 19. The
other beneficiaries did not give accounts.

j. Further the Respondent choose to release the monies to the other

Beneficiaries on his own accord. At the time the money was released to
Mr.Sevugan and Mr.Meyappan , Mr.Ganesan has resigned and Mr.Sevugan
was not appointed as executor as I was contesting the application . The order
was only granted on 6 August 2010 – Enclosure A12 but monies was
th

released on 17 May 2010- page 19.

th

k. Respondent withholds the money that is due to me by saying that he has

been instructed not to release the money has I have not produced accounts.
This is unacceptable.

l. As person who had been all the while acting for all the beneficiaries and
facilitating the settlement process between the beneficiaries is duty
bound to ensure that every one has submitted the accounts before
releasing monies. His action of releasing to two of them who have not given
the accounts and on his own accord raise doubts and suspicion.

2. Monies released to Ganesan Chettier the administrator (a third party)

RM136,800.00 on 23 September 2007- page 7
rd

The administrator has asked monies released to himself who is a third party who is
not entitled to any share. This was objected and questioned by myself. No
explanation is given why the RM136,000.00 was given to the administrator.
The Respondent had stated that executor had knowledge . The executors who have
renounced their rights have no authority to instruct .as they have been replaced with
Administrator Mr.Ganesan. Respondent should have obtained the consent of the
beneficiaries as the monies from the sale of the property belongs to the beneficiaries
under the will. The Respondent choose fraudulently and dishonestly not to obtain
the consent of the beneficiaries before releasing the monies.

3. RM186,200 released to M.Manickavasagam SV.M.Firm on 23 September rd

2007 page 7-

a. SV.M.Firm owes RM3,168,749.00 to the estate- pg 30.

b. Vied Email dated 1 September 2007- Enclosure A11 stated the following
st

“…….I insisted Mr.Ganesan Chattier to produce Mr.

M.Manickavasagam ‘s accounts. He does not have details. Unless I
approve the accounts, I am not releasing my share to
M.Manickavasagam…. . “

c. Despite my objection monies were released to M.Manickavasagam .The

Respondent’s action is questionable and has acted contrary to the interest of
the Beneficiaries. Consent of the Beneficiaries should have been obtained.

3. Retention of sum of RM150,000.00 towards fees and disbursements –

a. Again this is inappropriate as the monies belong to the Beneficiaries as per

the will.

b. The order to transfer the properties to the Beneficiaries has been obtained in
the year . Enclosure A12. This transfer of properties by succession.
Application for FIC is not need and consent to transfer does incur much
expense. The fees and disbursement will not come up to RM150,000.00.
Further there are other monies belonging to the estate in the Bank account
(common fund) which can be used for this purpose.

c. Consent of the beneficiaries should have been obtained as the monies from
the sale belongs to beneficiaries under the will .

4. Submission

The Respondent did not take care of my interest and has acted dishonestly
and fraudulently in discharge of his duty. As a person who acted for all the
beneficiaries and has taken part in the negotiation and settlement , now
choose only to act for Sevuguan and filed in the application to appoint him as
executor in place of Mr.Ganesan after advising me in his mail dated 30 th

September 2008- Enclosure A7 that I can be also appointed as Attorney with

the consent of the Beneficiaries. On one hand he advised me that I can be
appointed and on the other hand without my knowledge he files in an
application to Mr.Sevugan. This is a conflict of interest. He goes on to release
the monies to other Beneficiaries breaching his assurance and undertaking.