Why lawyers can’t afford to get emotional

SHAH ALAM – The legal profession requires emotional detachment and strict adherence to ethical standards, especially when making public comments about ongoing or concluded cases.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said legal practitioners must not let personal emotions or opinions interfere with their professional conduct, as doing so undermined both ethical obligations and public trust in the legal system.

“Ethical awareness is the lawyer’s responsibility. A lawyer's primary duty is to the court, followed by the law, the legal profession, the public and only then to the client. This hierarchy ensures the integrity of the legal system.

“Lawyers should also understand their professional limits, regardless of the medium whether cinema, radio, television, or social media platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, or Facebook. There must always be clear boundaries,” he told Sinar Daily.

He added that these guidelines must come from within the legal profession itself, as lawyers should set their own standards to ensure they do not conflict with ethical obligations.

This, he said included avoiding conduct that disrespects the duty to the court, causes public confusion, undermines the reputation of fellow lawyers, or disrupts social harmony, all of which fall under a lawyer’s broader duty to society.

When asked whether lawyers may share court documents with the public, Haniff responded that it depended on context.

He said if the issue involved matters of public interest and clarification was needed, referring to court documents may be justified, but lawyers must present the full context, not selective excerpts and only if disclosure was truly necessary.

He said lawyers or litigants questioning the validity of a court decision in public, especially via social media could face two potential consequences: they may be subject to contempt proceedings, initiated either by opposing counsel or the court itself; or they may face complaints lodged to the Malaysian Bar's Disciplinary Board.

Haniff noted that while lawyers have the right to speak, they must do so within ethical bounds, avoiding statements that could lead to confusion or mistrust in the judiciary.

“Being a lawyer is not about celebrating a win. It’s about carrying out your duty, presenting the evidence for your client, for the court to consider,” he added.

He said regardless of whether the court’s decision was right or wrong, there was a proper process to follow and publicly questioning the validity of a court ruling on social media only served to raise suspicion and could put the individual at risk.

Meanwhile, lawyer and current Malaysian Bar member Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo said lawyers must respect the finality of court decisions and avoid actions that could damage the judiciary’s reputation or bring the profession into disrepute, including through social media.

She highlighted the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, noting that Rule 31 forbids conduct that lowers the profession’s dignity, while Rule 32 warns against behaviour influenced by client emotions or publicity that could affect legal proceedings.

Although Rule 32 focuses on client relations, she said its principles also apply to public comments that might undermine judicial decisions.

“If online commentaries by a lawyer give the impression that court findings were based on ‘false narratives’ or otherwise cast aspersions on judicial competence after a case has concluded, such conduct risks falling short of these standards.

“It not only blurs the line between legitimate commentary and undermining judicial authority, but also threatens to erode public trust in the courts,” she said when contacted.

Kokila said even personal opinions can have ethical consequences, especially if they suggested the court acted improperly or showed bias without evidence from trial records or public documents.

She emphasised that under Section 94(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, any dishonourable or improper conduct by a lawyer may be considered misconduct.

She said public comments that indirectly challenge a final judgment or a judge’s conduct are viewed as questioning the decision’s finality, which should instead be addressed through formal legal channels like appeals or reviews.

“Commentaries that cast doubt on court decisions, unless carefully framed as legitimate academic or professional critique after the exhaustion of legal remedies, may be viewed as eroding judicial authority and the principle of finality in litigation.

“For lawyers, who are officers of the court, such actions carry greater weight and may cross into misconduct or contempt if they diminish public confidence in the judiciary,” she said.

She said if a lawyer’s statements do not refer to confidential materials or re-examine evidence already publicly available, they may not always cross the line into professional misconduct.

However, she said the tone, intent and impact of the commentary still matter, especially when coming from a member of the Bar.

As disciplinary consequences, lawyers found guilty of misconduct could face reprimand, a fine up to RM50,000, suspension, or in the most serious cases, be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors, she added.