LEGAL PROFESSION

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG v. SURESH SUBRAMANIAM [2025] 4 CLJ 667 (Federal Court)

Case Digest :

[1] The duty of care beholden upon a solicitor is not contingent upon him being paid for his services by the client. Therefore, even if such a service is given pro bono, that duty remains, and a breach thereof would render the solicitor liable. The solicitor must, at all material times, exercise reasonable skill and care in securing and preserving the client's interest.

[2] The same standard of care which applies to other skilled professionals applies to an advocate (or legal practitioner), which is, that the “error was one which no reasonably competent member of the relevant profession would have made” and that standard is an important element of protection against unjustified liabilities. Equally important to bear in mind when considering whether this standard of care has been breached is the need to satisfy the “but for” test in order to establish the link between the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the claimant and the act of the defendant as the alleged perpetrator.

DISCLAIMER: THE CONTENTS HEREIN ARE INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. SHOULD YOU HAVE FURTHER QUERIES AND/OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FULL ARTICLE, KINDLY CONTACT US.