Jurisk! Dec 2015 - FINAL Approved

8/20/2019 Jurisk! Dec 2015 - FINAL Approved

1/32

The Humble Checklist:

YOUR MOSTPOWERFUL TOOL

Read Jurisk! Dec 2015

Page 2 - Chairperson’s Message

Page 5 - PII Did You Know?

Page 7 - Case Studies

Page 16 - The Skinny on Checklists

Page 20 - PII Tahukah Anda?

Page 22 - Kajian Kes

Page 30 - Risk Management Highlights


2/32

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2

We would like to wish you a Happy New Year and may thecoming year bring joy and happiness! This is a time whenthe Bar Council’s Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”)Committee pays extra attention to the managing of theScheme for the future, taking in current trends, collating thepast year’s data and having more dialogues with the Scheme’s

stakeholders. One thing remains the same however, and thatis our shared responsibility towards the Scheme.

The statistics on claims are not too goodalthough it is still manageable. Despiteour eorts, claims have continued to riseand what it means in real terms is that weare looking at a premium hike if we do notmanage our risks within the profession.

A snap shot of the breakdown in claims inaccordance with practice area is as follows:

Most of the conveyancing claims could have beenavoided if Members took more eort to manage theirrisks. Most of the Insured Practices (“IP”) facing claimsDO NOT USE any form of checklists. Many do noteven know that we have prepared specic checklistsfor conveyancing.

The Scheme receives many notications fromconveyancing-related claims and this has propelled

the PII Committee to do our best to educate lawyerson the many pitfalls in conveyancing that even themost seasoned lawyers can fall into. There are manypractice tools to utilise, that will help all conveyancingpractitioners be more wary of trips and traps inconveyancing practice.

Note:

1.

2.

Malaysian Bar Scheme Statistics1992 to 2015 (as at 31.03.2015),Echelon Claims Consultants Sdn Bhd

Some claims are still open/ongoing

The following are the conveyancingchecklists that we have developed:

1. Sub-Sale of Property with title(For Purchaser)

2. Sub-Sale of Property with title(For Vendor)

3. Sub-Sale of Property without title(For Purchaser)

4. Sub-Sale of Property without title(For Vendor)

Jurisk! December 2015

Working Together for a Better Scheme

Total Notications by Areas of Practice

Costs Incurred by Insurer

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

186

No. ofNotications

RinggitMalaysia (RM)

165 164 193 191 216

Claims Paid

Reserves

Conveyancing(Commercial and Residential)

Civil Litigation

Company Work

Others


3/32

Risk Aware! – Diagnose Your Firm’s Risk

Management Health

In 2016 we will be embarking on a Risk Aware! Initiative that will see a team made up of variousindividuals from the Malaysian Bar’s PII Schemevisiting and sitting-in with law rm Partners, LegalAssistants, Managers and sta to conduct an overviewof their risk management practices.

We would only look at processes and not theindividual les and therefore there is no worry ofany breach of solicitor-client privilege. This will befollowed by a session on how the Firm can better itsrisk management practices.

The Risk Aware! Initiative hopes to reach out toas many Firms as possible. We hope you take thisopportunity to open up your oces to our Team, asthis exercise will be most benecial. More informationon this initiative can be found on page 4.

Practice Mentors

We also intend to set up a loose panel of seniorlawyers who can assist other Members who wouldneed a sounding board or advice. This would belimited to general advice only and would not beopinions on any specic matter or le.

This initiative requires the approval of Bar Counciland if everything is in order we should be able tolaunch it before the end of the rst quarter of 2016.

2016 Premiums

We are at year two of our second three-year agreementwith the Insurer and part of that agreement was thesurety of stabilised premiums for the same duration.We have managed to maintain within the band of noincrease or decrease in premium. However, the samecannot be promised for future renewals.

Continue to be vigilant and detailed oriented in your

practice, and develop good risk management practicesto avoid the possibility of being sued. Although theScheme oers us protection, we must collectively doour best to maintain it. The Scheme relies heavilyon Members and the way we run and manage ourpractices.

I wish to reiterate, the PII Committee has manyrecourses for Members that are in an unfortunateposition of a claim. Please do contact us or the PIIand Risk Management Department at 03-2032 4511 oremail [email protected] with your problemsand grievances. It remains an important responsibilityof the Committee to continuously ensure that Membersalways have alternative solutions available.

Ragunath KesavanChairpersonPII CommitteeEmail: [email protected]: 03-2095 2299

There are two versions available for each checklist; there are the “Step-By-Step” versions with long-form checklists that lists the procedures in detailand there are “Snapshot Checklists” versions of the same. The formerformat is extremely useful for young and new practitioners and benecialtwo-ways: it will aide their training in the law of conveyancing, as well asprovide Legal Assistants and Partners with an easy to refer guide of where

their conveyancing clerks are in each conveyancing le.

The Snapshot Checklists are a condensed version of the step-by-step guide;adequate and sucient enough to provide the basic overview and assiststhe conveyancer to ensure no step goes amiss. These and other practiceareas checklists can be downloaded for free from www.praktis.com.my ineither PDF or MS Word format.

It must be your Firm’s standard operating procedure for every conveyancingle which is opened to have a checklist on its front cover!! Using andmaintaining each checklist for each le is good risk management practice.If a Firm is unfortunate enough to be sued, and if the Firm can provide theInsurer proof of good risk management practices, their Base Excess will

not be increased. Proper and evident use of these checklists can aide inreinstating a Firm’s original Base Excess.


3


4/324

Have you ever wondered if you have

suitable risk management in place?

Did you know you should be crosschecking documents, receipts,instructions etc before making out apayment?

Do you have procedures for runninga conveyancing le, handling litigationmatters, meeting clients, handlingaccounts etc?

Does your rm use checklists?

Start the year by ensuring your rm hasadequate risk management. The PIICommittee encourages Members to open uptheir rms for a visit from our team to assessthe procedures (or none) that are in place inyour rm. The aim is very straightforward,to identify ways to improve your rm’sprocedures, and to help you minimise anypossibility of a claim made against you.

We urge Members to participate in this

programme as it will benet your rm toidentify any hidden risks. The Risk Aware! initiative which aims to reach as many Memberswill start in 2016 at no cost to our Members.Upon completion of the assessment, a reportand suggested improvements will be providedto the Firm.

What we will look at:

• Procedures on handling les,accounts etc

• Overall supervision of sta

• Communication with client, theother party’s solicitor, third partiesetc

• Use of technology

• Others

If you are interested to participate in the Risk Aware! initiative, contact the PII and RiskManagement Department.

It’s all about helping our Members

improve their practice!

Dear Members,

Inside this Issue …

… checklists take centre stage! Often times, it is not

ignorance of the law or ill intent that causes negligence

in your practice, as you already have the knowledge

and the know-how. The problem lies in there being

multiple streams of information and just too manycase les being juggled at the same time. It is just a

matter of time before a solid mistake and/or oversight

happens. This will, in turn, lead to dire consequences

— a claim against your rm.

A simple, unassuming tool that can change the way

you conduct your daily aairs, both in terms of oce

management and handling of case les, is the humble

checklist. Using checklists in the more routine aspects

of your work can help ensure that no steps are missed.

Having a checklist instils condence in your work and

helps in the event of a claim made against you or yourrm.

This issue of Jurisk! highlights a variety of case studies

of actual claims from the Malaysian Bar’s Mandatory

Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) Scheme. The

claims highlighted stem from conveyancing les, hence

they are a convenient way to accentuate to Members

how the practice of conveyancing law can be.

Our centre spread contains an “all-you-need-to-know”

feature about checklists. If you have never made a

checklist for your rm, or if you have never used one

before, this is the perfect starting point to get you

well on your way. Checklists can make you a more

eective, ecient lawyer, and sets the path for you to

be a prudent practitioner!

We hope this issue of Jurisk! is helpful to you. We

are always looking for better content to serve the

everyday lawyer in this publication. If you have any

thoughts or ideas on future content that you would

like to share with us, please contact us at the PII

and Risk Management Department. You can nd our

contact details on page 32.

Happy reading!

The Jurisk! Team

4

The

Risk Aware!

Initiative



5/32

Clause 10 of the 2015 Certicate ofInsurance (“COI”) states the following:

The Base Excess specied in Item 9 ofthe Schedule shall be increased to theamounts specied below in the event ofany claim arising out of the followingcircumstances or events:

Conict of Interest:RM100,000 or 2 times the BaseExcess whichever is the higher

subject to a maximum of RM300,000where you have acted for morethan one party to a transaction inrespect of conveyancing of landand/or buildings otherwise than inaccordance with Bar Council’s Rulesand Rulings as amended from time totime on conict of interest, applicableat the time of the transaction.

However the Base Excess shall applyin the event you had obtained writtenwaivers from the clients.

Conveyancing Base Excess:RM50,000 minimum in respectof conveyancing of land and/orbuildings.

However the Base Excess shall applyif:

you had in place an implementedrisk management programmeat the time of the act, error oromission giving rise to the claim was committed; or

it is adjudged by the Court thatthere is no civil liability arisingfrom the claim against the Firm;orthe claimant unconditionallywithdraws the claim against theFirm.

Dishonesty of Partner:RM20,000 multiplied by the numberof principles subject to a minimumof RM30,000 and a maximum ofRM250,000 per Firm in respect ofmisconduct of principals.

(a) Conict of Interest

To briey illustrate this sub-clause, let’stake Firm XYZ of ve lawyers that carriesa regular Base Excess of RM35,000. If asuit is brought against the Firm stemming

from the Firm having acted in conict ofinterest, Insurers will apply the increasedBase Excess of RM100,000 (as this is thehigher amount compared to twice theirBase Excess) UNLESS the Firm provideswritten waivers from the clients.

In application it simply means if theFirm is found liable to pay damages ofRM150,000 and the Firm cannot providethe written waivers, then the Firm willhave to pay RM100,000 towards thedamages awarded and Insurers will pay

the balance RM50,000 plus defence costincurred. Same will apply in the event ofa settlement.

Therefore, it is very important for Firmsto steer clear of representing two or moreparties whose interests are in conict inANY transaction. Maintaining clear andconscionable loyalties to two masters isnever achievable.

Chapter 6 of the Rules and Rulings ofthe Bar Council on Conict of Interest

disallows this practice for good reason.If however, both parties insist on thesame representation, then the Firmshould ensure that all parties agree andunderstand the impact before signing thewaivers.

…that your Base Excess will be increased tospecic amounts in these three situations?

?

Do note that in the 2015 COI, theClause on Base Excess is Clause 10whilst in previous years, the BaseExcess is addressed in Clause 11.

5

(a)

(b)

(c)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)



6/32

(b) Conveyancing Base Excess

Using Firm XYZ again as an example,should a suit be led against the Firmwhere the claim arises from a conveyanceof land and/or building, the Firm’s BaseExcess will be increased to minimumRM50,000.

If however, the Firm can provide theInsurers a write up with supportingdocuments, eg how the Firm managestheir conveyancing les, number ofconveyancing sta, distribution ofwork and duties, their experience, the

supervision and monitoring of their work,the checklists to guide the conveyancersand the sta, KIV system to monitor thedates etc; all of these would go towardsshowing the risk management initiativesand processes that the Firm had in placeat the time the act, error or omissiongiving rise to the claim was committed.Insurers will seek independent advice andonce satised the Firm’s original BaseExcess will be reinstated.

In practice if the Firm is found liable to pay

damages of RM150,000 and the Firm didnot submit the above documents to havetheir original Base Excess reinstated, thenthe Firm will have to pay RM50,000 towardsthe damages awarded and Insurerswill pay the balance of RM100,000 plusdefence cost incurred. Same will apply inthe event of a settlement.

The reason for Conveyancing-basedclaims to be singled out under Clause 10 isbecause of how relatively straightforwardand procedural this area of law is, and

by implementing checklists, controls andadopting a standard practice method toall conveyancing les, risks of mistakesand oversight can be eradicated. Suitsled against Firms for conveyancingmatters stem from lawyers skipping whatwould otherwise be basic steps that mustbe done in conveyancing but the lawyerchose a shortcut instead!

Among others, they fail to conduct theinitial land search, and sometimes theland search prior to registration, properidentity checks are skipped, and caveatsare not lodged.

(c) Dishonesty of Partner

The increased Base Excess statedin Clause 10(c) of the 2015 COI willapply once the Insurer has agreedtowards cover for ‘innocent Partner(s)’when there is a claim arising out ofdishonesty of Partner(s). However theLimit of Indemnity applicable will beRM350,000 or the Firm’s MandatoryLimit whichever is lower.

To illustrate Clause 10(c), let’s look attwo dierent scenarios:

Scenario 1: Firm OP is a two-personpartnership, which means their BaseExcess is RM20,000 and MandatoryLimit of Indemnity is RM300,000. In asuccessful suit against Firm OP, whereone partner was found to have carriedout a dishonest act of siphoningmoney (misconduct), cover will onlybe provided to the other partner(“innocent Partner”). In addition, theFirm’s Base Excess is now automaticallyincreased to RM40,000 for this claimand no changes to the Firm’s Limit of

Indemnity.

Scenario 2: For a four-personpartnership (Firm QRST), their BaseExcess is RM30,500 with a MandatoryLimit of Indemnity at RM400,000. Ina situation similar to the above suit,cover will only be provided to theremaining three “innocent Partners”.Since Firm QRST has four partners,the Firm will have to pay an increasedBase Excess of RM80,000, and theInsurer will only cover the remainder,

up to RM350,000 for this claim.

6

NB: Under the Mandatory PIIScheme, cover is always subjectto terms, exclusions, limitationsand conditions of the relevantCerticate of Insurance.

The Bahasa Malaysia translationon page 20 relating to the MasterPolicy, Certicate of Insurance andillustrative examples is for guidance

only. In the event of inconsistencybetween the English version andthe Bahasa Malaysia version, theEnglish version will prevail.


?


7/32

Who would have thought a simple surgical checklist could save manylives during major operations? The surgical checklist, devised bythe World Health Organisation “WHO” in 2009 was tested in eightcities around the world and the results were startling; the usage ofchecklists reduced inpatient deaths by more than 40% and surgicalcomplications by more than a third during major operations. Witha history of great success in minimising risks, checklists could alsobe an eective risk management tool for lawyers.

The use of checklist among lawyers is not new. In fact, most lawyerswould have their checklists ready before they open new les ortake on new tasks, especially for conveyancing matters wheremost procedures are quite straight forward. For these reasons, BarCouncil has produced conveyancing checklists which could assistlawyers to be on the ball in their day-to-day conveyancing work. Itshould be noted that these checklists are only a guide on standardprocedures and processes in the relevant practice areas. Thesechecklists are not conclusive and should be used judiciously andtailored according to lawyers’ specic requirements for each le.

Clause 10(b) of the 2015Certicate of Insurance(“COI”) states that the BaseExcess for claims involving

conveyancing matters willbe increased to RM50,000minimum. Nonetheless, theFirm’s original Base Excesswill apply if the InsuredPractice (“IP”) can showthat it had sucient riskmanagement processes inplace at the time the act,error or omission giving riseto the claim was committed.The PII Did You Know?segment on page 5 hasfurther details on this clause.

The following case studies are actual pastclaims of the Malaysian Bar ProfessionalIndemnity Insurance Scheme. All namesand places have been changed to protect therespective identities.

We explore a few casestudies in which the IPs weresuccessfully sued by theirclients and/or other third

parties, for damages incurredfrom malpractice or negligencein conveyancing matters. TheInsurer, in accordance withClause 10(b) increased theirrespective Base Excesses,meaning that all the IPs in thefollowing cases had to bear alarger portion of the liability,that is unless they could proveto the Insurer that they hadadequate risk managementpractices and protocols inplace.

The most demonstrative way an IP can showtheir adherence to sound risk managementpractice is to evidence to the Insurer theproper usage of checklists for each and every

conveyancing le. As a further guide, IPsmay also include and explain the followingrisk management processes in their write-ups to the Insurer to get their Base Excessreinstated:

• Identity checks on vendor and purchaser.• Conict of interest checks before opening

conveyancing les.• Implementation of a centralised diary

system to track important dates.• When the client is briefed of the full terms

in the Sale and Purchase Agreement(“SPA”).

• The time of lodging of caveats after clientsigns the SPA and makes a deposit.

• Implementation of a proper supervisorysystem between lawyers andconveyancing clerks.

• A lawyer witnessing attestations onconveyancing documents.

• Partners (or Sole Proprietor) runningthrough conveyancing les prior tosigning o.

Getting Things Right

One Checklist at a Timeby Shaq Sobri, Jardine Lloyd Thompson Sdn Bhd

7



8/32

DON’T LET THE GRASS

GROW UNDERYOUR FEET

Fred appointed Messrs Dooand Co (“IP”) to discharge hiscondominium from Bank ABC uponthe settlement of his propertyloan with the said bank. The bankforwarded the relevant documentsto the IP for that purpose.

Three months later, Bank X initiateda bankruptcy proceeding againstFred to recover the judgment sumowed by him to the bank. Freddecided to renance the propertywith Bank Z in order to pay the judgment sum. However, he wasinformed by the loan ocer atBank Z that the renancing couldnot be done since the propertywas still charged to Bank ABC.

Astounded with the news, Freddecided to conduct his own landsearch. He discovered that hiscondominium was still charged toBank ABC despite the fact that hehad already settled the loan withBank ABC and had already paid

full legal fees to the IP to dischargethe property.

Subsequently, Fred was declaredbankrupt due to his failure to settlethe judgment sum to Bank X. Fredsued the IP alleging negligence onthe part of the IP’s for failing todischarge the property. He furtheralleges that the IP’s negligencemade him lose the chance torenance his property and pay the judgment sum to Bank X.

In reviewing the IP’s risk management processesto determine if their original Base Excess should bereinstated, the Insurer found the following:

The checklists that were used by the IP did not include details for due dates ordeadlines in respect of the next item that the IP was supposed to follow up.

The checklists were too generic. The IP adapted the sub-sale nancing checklistinto the checklists for properties purchased from the developers as well as fordischarge of charge without any modications.

Certain checklists employed by the IP for other conveyancing les were notcomplete nor comprehensive. For instance, the checklist in a sale and purchasetransaction where the vendor or purchaser is a company, it did not contain therequirement for board of directors’ and/or shareholders’ resolution and other needfor corporate documents.

The IP did not maintain a “Keep in View” (“KIV”) system to track of importantdates and urgent matters.

8



9/32

Chuckie, a partner at Messrs Finster and Associates(“IP”) acted for Tommy, the purchaser in a sale andpurchase of a property. The property was chargedto Bank ABC as a security for the loan extended toAngelica, the vendor in the transaction.

Bank ABC issued a redemption statement to Chuckiewhich clearly stated that the redemption sum shouldbe forwarded to the bank directly. Chuckie was alsohandling other conveyancing matters for dierentclients at that time and only realised that thedeadline to forward the redemption sum to the bank

was about to expire in three days, and this too onlyafter Tommy reminded him about it.

Due to time shortage, Chuckie decided to depositthe cheque for the redemption sum from Tommy’snancier bank directly to Angelica’s loan accountwith Bank ABC. Unbeknown to Chuckie, Angelica’s

loan account with Bank ABC had a unique featurewhich allowed her to withdraw money from the loanaccount. Angelica made several withdrawals from theaccount after the cheque was cleared and as a result,the redemption sum was not enough to redeem theproperty from Bank ABC.

Chuckie only discovered the fact after he was notiedby Bank ABC that the property was up for auction dueto the non-payment of redemption sum. Devastatedwith the news, Tommy decided to sue for losses dueto Chuckie’s negligence.

In reviewing the IP’srisk managementprocesses to determine

if their original BaseExcess should bereinstated, the Insurerfound the following:

Although the IP used checklists for all conveyancing les, the checklists were notfully utilised. The checklists only had the “date done” section and did not havethe “due date” section. There was also no evidence from the checklists that the IPmonitored crucial due dates and deadlines.

The checklist and the redemption statement specically provided that theredemption sum should be forwarded directly to the bank. Despite this requirement,the IP forwarded the cheque for the redemption sum directly to the vendor.

ALWAYS BE

ON YOUR TOES

9



10/32

Tina, a sole proprietorof Messrs Belcher & Co.(“IP”) was instructed byTeddy, her good friendwho was terminally ill toconvey a few propertiesowned by him to hisfamily members. Teddyhad two families from twoseparate marriages and

due to his complicatedrelationships with hisfamilies he decided to doaway with writing a will.

Tina advised Teddy thathe should at least signa retainer agreement to

avoid complications inthe future. Nonetheless,Teddy brushed o the ideaand proceeded to sign thetransfer and assignmentforms. He advised Tinaon the intended recipientsand instructed her toonly get them to sign theforms after his death. Hefurther instructed Tinato secure the titles tothe properties from his

only son from his rstmarriage and to date theforms a few days beforehis death.

Teddy passed away tenmonths later and perhis instructions, Tinaproceeded to secure thetitles from Teddy’s sonand called all recipients tobrief them about Teddy’s

wishes and instructions.All recipients from bothfamilies did not object thearrangement and signedthe forms. Nevertheless,the acceptance andagreement of sucharrangements were notconrmed in writingbetween the recipientsthen. Tina backdated theforms to a month beforeTeddy’s death as per his

instruction and proceededwith the presentations tothe land oce.

To her surprise, theland oce rejectedthe presentations andinformed Tina thatTeddy’s second wife andher daughter had lodgeda private caveat on three

properties which weremeant to be transferredto Teddy’s rst family.While trying to resolvethe problem with bothfamilies, Tina was servedwith a writ from Teddy’ssecond wife alleging herof conspiring with Teddy’srst family to defraud herrightful entitlement tothe properties.

The IP used conveyancing checklists diligently and ensured that deadlines andall prerequisites for each matter were fully met. The checklists were also inaccordance with the basic conveyancing checklist suggested by Bar Council.

Nonetheless there were no written agreements, letter of authorisation nor aretainer agreement to prove that the IP had indeed acted on the advice of the

deceased, or that the recipients agreed to such arrangements.

The backdating of documents was also considered unethical as it gave a falseimpression that the documents were executed prior to Teddy’s death.

TO REST IN

PEACE

10

In reviewing the IP’s risk management processes to determine if theiroriginal Base Excess should be reinstated, the Insurer found the following:



11/32

Messrs Turner and Associates (“IP”) was the panellawyer for Bank ABC and handled commercial loantransactions for the bank. In 2013, Cosmo PropertyPty Ltd (“Cosmo”) approached the bank to get acommercial loan of RM1,700,000. The loan will besecured by an oce building owned by Cosmo. Timmy,a partner of the IP prepared the loan agreement andvetted through the relevant documents from Cosmo.Once the documents were in order, Timmy instructed

the bank to release the money to Cosmo.

After the loan was released to Cosmo, Timmyreceived a phone call from one of Cosmo’s directorssaying that the company had never applied for anyloan from Bank ABC. The directors of Cosmo did noteven execute the loan documents nor passed a boardof directors’ resolution to accept the loan from BankABC!

Astounded with the revelation, the IP contacted thesolicitor who represented Cosmo in the transaction.It was later discovered that the solicitor representedCosmo was defrauded by two imposters purporting tobe the directors of Cosmo. The imposters presentedfake identity cards bearing the same names as thedirectors of Cosmo. The board of director’s resolutionprovided by the imposters was also forged.

The directors led an injunction to prevent Bank ABCand the IP from charging the company’s property forthe loan granted to the imposters. As a result, Bank

ABC suered losses and sued the IP for negligence.

LEAVE NO

STONE

UNTURNED

The checklists used by the IP were comprehensive and according to the basicconveyancing checklist suggested by Bar Council.

As per the requirement in the checklist, the IP requested a conrmation fromCosmo’s company secretary to verify its corporate information.

The checklist used by the IP for this particular le did not have any requirementto secure a conrmation from the company secretary on the genuineness of theboard of director’s resolution. Nonetheless, the IP could have taken one stepfurther by securing such conrmation to ensure the authenticity of the board ofdirector’s resolution provided to them.

In reviewing the IP’s risk management processesto determine if their original Base Excess shouldbe reinstated, the Insurer found the following:

11



12/32

ALWAYS DO

THE SPADEWORK

Messrs Korra and Associates (“IP”) was

named as the Third Defendant in a writled by a Claimant who claimed thatthe IP was involved in a conspiracy todefeat the execution of an arbitrationaward against the First Defendant.

It all started when the IP acted for theSecond Defendant to purchase a fewproperties from the First Defendant.However, it was not known to either theIP or the Second Defendant that theClaimant was awarded with damagesfrom an arbitration proceeding between

the Claimant and the First Defendant.

A few years earlier, the Claimant obtained an arbitration award of

RM1,000,000 in relation to a land dispute with the First Defendant.The Claimant made an application to the High Court to enforce thearbitral award against the First Defendant and it was allowed.

However, before the Claimant could enforce the award, the FirstDefendant sold a few parcels of land which were not recordedin the audited accounts to the Second Defendant. The Claimantalleged that the disposal of lands will aect their ability to recoverthe damages under the arbitral award. The Claimant led a writand alleged that the First Defendant, the Second Defendant andthe IP had conspired to dissipate the lands in order to defeat thearbitral award granted to the Claimant.

Note: The land which the Second Defendant purchased from theFirst Defendant was never part of the land dispute.

12


The checklist employed by the IP for their conveyancing les were verycomprehensive and in accordance with the basic conveyancing checklist suggestedby Bar Council.

The checklist included critical timelines such as date of the SPA, completiondate of the SPA, submission of real property gains tax returns with the InlandRevenue Board, payment of the dierential sum for the purchaser, receipt of theredemption statement from the Vendor’s nancier, release of the redemption sumto the Vendor’s nancier, release of the loan sum by the Purchaser’s nancier andpayment of the balance purchase price to the Vendor.

From the checklists, the Insurer was able to ascertain that the IP was diligent andcautious in the manner they had handled the transaction since the IP kept trackof crucial dates and processes.



13/32

Danny Fenton of Messrs Fentonand Co (“IP”) acted for Jasmine,the purchaser in a conveyancingtransaction to prepare the SPA.The vendor, Maddie was notrepresented but was assistedby her daughter and son-in-law. After the deposit was paidto Maddie, Danny proceeded topresent the Memorandum ofTransfer to the land oce.

After the Memorandum of Transfer was successfully presented, Maddiethrough her new solicitor elected to terminate the SPA and forfeit thedeposit. Maddie’s solicitor also demanded Danny to return the title toMaddie and threatened to lodge a complaint against Danny with theDisciplinary Board should he fail to comply with the demand.

Jasmine insisted to continue on with the transaction and requested Danny

to forward the balance purchase price to Maddie’s solicitor to completethe transaction. The balance purchase price was returned back. Jasmineintended to challenge the termination and instructed Danny to le a writfor specic performance.

Maddie, who was persistent with the termination decided to le awrit against Danny and the IP. Maddie alleged, inter alia, that Dannyrepresented both the vendor and purchaser in the transaction. She alsoalleged that Danny breached the SPA for the failure to return the titleand other relevant documents after the termination of SPA and in badfaith, presented the title for transfer without informing her despite theknowledge that the SPA had been terminated.

WHEN IT RAINS

IT POURS

13

In reviewing the IP’srisk management

processes to determineif their original BaseExcess should bereinstated, the Insurerfound the following:

The IP diligently used a comprehensive checklist.

The checklist clearly stated that the IP only acted on behalf of Jasmine, thepurchaser.

The IP also kept track of all important dates of all processes in the transactionand as such was able to demonstrate that the presentation of the Memorandum ofTransfer was not done in bad faith since they only received the termination notice

from the vendor after it was presented at the land oce.



14/32


PRESENT HERE

BUT NOT

THERE

Messrs Wakeman and Carbuckle(“IP”) represented the purchaser,Sheldon to prepare the SPA for aresidential property. The Vendor,Tremorton Pty Ltd (“Tremorton”)was unrepresented. Two monthsafter the execution of the SPA,

Sheldon discovered that theproperty was being auctioned o by Bank ABC.

Sheldon led a writ against the IPclaiming damages and alleged thatthe IP breached the duty of care bymisrepresenting and advising himthat the property was free fromencumbrances. He also allegedthat the IP failed to make properland searches and failed to lodge aprivate caveat to secure his interest.

The IP admitted that the SPAcontained a recital which mentionedthat the property was free fromencumbrances. Nonetheless,upon realising that mistake theIP decided to rectify the SPAmanually and made a remark thatthe property was charged to BankABC. The SPA also had a clauseregarding the redemption of theproperty. The land search done bythe IP also conrmed the position

of the property being charged toBank ABC at the time.

Since Sheldon was not a Malaysiancitizen, consent from the StateAuthority was needed before thepresentation could be made. The IP

faced some diculties in obtainingthe consent since Tremortondid not provide the quit rentand assessment receipts for theproperties. The IP also could notlodge a private caveat since Sheldondid not provide sucient funds forthat purpose. Nevertheless, theIP decided to lodge a caveat usingtheir money rst pending receipt offunds from Sheldon.

Since the consent could not be

obtained on time, the redemptionsum could not be forwarded to BankABC. Bank ABC decided to exercisetheir right and auction o theproperty. The IP informed Sheldonthat he could exercise his right andterminate the SPA at that point.Nonetheless Sheldon kept mumand did not give any instructions tothe IP. Only after the property wassuccessfully auctioned o, the IPreceived a writ from Sheldon.

The conveyancing checklists employed by the IP were general and not tailored to this specictransaction. The IP should have taken additional steps to obtain the consent from the State Authority.

The checklist stated that the vendor, although unrepresented, should be responsible to secure theconsent from the State Authority. This step should have been fullled at the time of the execution ofthe SPA. However, since both parties signed the consent form on the day the SPA was executed, theexemption is accepted.

Although the IP manually rectied the SPA to ensure it correctly reected the position of the propertybeing charged to Bank ABC, the IP failed to rectify and amend the other duplicates of the SPA.

The caveat was not lodged immediately or soon after the SPA was executed. The checklist employed

by the IP provided that the caveat will only be lodged after the client has paid the relevant bills, andbefore sending the SPA for stamping. Although the purchaser did not provide sucient funds for thecaveat, the IP still managed to le a caveat on the property to protect the purchaser’s interest byusing their own money.

14



15/32

In 2014, we received 73 noticationson residential conveyancing. Out ofthis gure, 36 notications werereported under the sub-cause of “acted in breach of conveyancingpractice”.

Compared to 2013, there were only14 notications under this sub-causefrom the total of 51 notications onresidential conveyancing. The typesof notications are distributed asfollows:

Among the causes/contentionsfor notications under this sub-cause are:• Failure to conclude

conveyancing transactionswithin stipulated time.

• Failure to follow client’sadvice and instructionwhen drafting the Saleand Purchase Agreement(“SPA”).

• Failure to explain the termsand conditions of the SPAclearly to the client.

• Failure to ensure that thefull purchase price has beenpaid before transferring the

property to purchaser.• Failure to ascertain the

bankruptcy status of thevendor.

• Failure to ensure the statusof land/property in thetransaction.

• Failure to comply with theterms and conditions of theSPA.

With notications on conveyancing matters on the rise, it would be prudentfor IPs to bolster their risk management processes in the rm. Having asound risk management process in the rm would enable the IPs to holdthe aces and prevent their practice from being susceptible to claims in this

area of practice.

For a refresher, the following best practice tips may assist lawyers to improvetheir risk management processes when handling conveyancing les.

Communication is key• Explain the terms and conditions of SPA clearly to clients. Ensure that

clients fully understand the terms and conditions stipulated in theagreement to avoid disputes in the future.

• Keep notes of conversations and communications with clients anddocument the discussions in a letter/email to clients.

• Always conrm clients’ instructions in writing. Keep photocopies of allcorrespondences in the le for easy reference.

• Always take time to discuss and communicate with clients to ensureimportant information and instructions are not overlooked or missed out.

Clear supervision and guidance are necessary• Always supervise and guide conveyancing clerks who are assigned to

handle clients’ les. Ensure that they understand the scope of theirwork and only work with clients within the permissible authority frompartners.

• Although delegation of work to clerks may improve productivity, trynot to over-rely on clerks to complete the whole transaction. Even themost experienced clerks may overlook certain details or miss out onthe correct conveyancing procedures.

Keep the oce diary handy• A central oce diary or a “Keep In View” system will greatly help

lawyers keep tabs on crucial deadlines or due dates.• Always check the updated dates in the oce diary to ensure they are

entered correctly. Missing out on deadlines can be costly!

Claims Alert

Type of notication No

Writs 24

Notiable Circumstances 7

Notices of Demand 4

Third Party Action against IP 1

29

9

Highest claim amount RM2,210,123.60

Highest mandatory limit of indemnity RM1,200,000

IPs that submitted risk management write-ups to the Insurer for base excess

reinstatement

3

IPs that managed to get the base excess reinstated (Base excess reinstatement isfully explained in page 5, with case study illustrations on page 7)

9

IPs that have top-up insurance 6

Highest top-up limit RM14,350,000

Sole Proprietor

Partnership

15


* Claims’ statistics as at October 2015.Source: Malaysian Bar PII Scheme Statistics 1992-2015 (as at 31.03.2015), Echelon Claims Consultant Sdn Bhd


16/32

Why the Need for Checklists ?

No matter how skilled you and your

sta

ma y be, well-thought out checklist

s will

help in impro ving results and minimising

mistakes.

Pro vides visible achie vable targets

Final ob jecti ve of the pro ject is clea

r

Denes an indi viduals’ scope and

responsibilit y

Pro vides consistent results

Pro vides a step-b y-step guide

Eliminates mistakes and er

rors

Keeps one from going o-course

Increases ecienc y and producti vit

y

Reduces time wastage

Easiest tool to adapt to

File audits and re views done quicker

THE SKINNY ON

CHECKLISTS

H o w D o I Make My O w n C hecklist s? W hile t he c ont ent of y our c ase w or k may be

unique, y ou’ ll fnd st eps t hat ar e r epeat ed ov er and ov er again. Any t hing t hat is done r epet it iv ely in t his manner is ideal f or c hec k list

usage.

1. C hoose a pr oc edur e t o mak e a list f r om

2. L ist how t he pr oc edur e is c ur r ent ly handled

3. C onduc t ev aluat ion of t he c ur r ent pr ac t ic e4. Dev elop t he c hec k list 5 . K eep eac h point c lear and c onc ise6. Av oid being t oo det ailed and / or t oo v ague or impr ec ise7 . T her e is no need t o spell out ev er y single st ep

8. Mak e sur e t he mor e c r it ic al and impor t ant st eps ar e list ed9. T est t he c omplet ed c hec k list in a r eal-w or ld

sc enar io

16



17/3217

P u t t i n g Y o u r C h e c k li s t s T o G o o d U s e Law y e r s ar e k n o w n t o j u g g le m an y t h i n g s at o n c e ,

an d

i n t e r r u p t i o n s ar e c o m m o n i n a law f i r m . U s e o f a c h e c k li s t c an h e lp y o u p i c k u p e as i ly w h e r e y o u las t le f t o f f .

I f t h e r e i s a c h e c k li s t f o r a p r o c e d u r e , u s e i t ! M ak e all c h e c k li s t s av ai lab le t o all r e le v an t s t af f / law y e r s .C ar r y o u t r an d o m s p o t c h e c k s t o e n s u r e p r o p e r u s e o f c h e c k li s t s b y s t af f / law y e r s .B e f le x i b le i n allo w i n g u s ag e o f b o t h s o f t an d h ar d c o p i e s o f c h e c k li s t s .

T r ai n i n c o m i n g s t af f o n i m p o r t an c e o f u s i n g c h e c k li s t s .A lw ay s b e o p e n t o i d e as f r o m s t af f t o i m p r o v e c h e c k li s t s .

Practice Areas

Conveyancing Practice

• Sub-Sale of Property with

title (For Purchaser)

• Sub-Sale of Property with

title (For Vendor)

• Sub-Sale of Property without

title (For Purchaser)

• Sub-Sale of Property without

title: (For Vendor)

General litigation

Will writing

Bankruptcy

Incorporation

Commercial Lease

Residential Lease

Criminal Procedure

Sentencing ProcedureWinding Up

Law Firm Management

100 Point Identity Checklist

Meeting and engaging a new client

Communication protocols

Opening and closing case les

Trial preparation

Managing your Firm’s nances

Accounts Receivable and AccountsPayable

Hiring and training sta

Conicts’ screening

Delegate eectively

Manage your practice

Market your practice

Types of Checklists You Can Use Everyday

17

Jurisk! Dec 2015 Jurisk! December 2015


18/3218

A Funny Lawyer’s

CHECKLISTto Start the New Year!

Spend time withfamily and friends.

Read a book.

Go to a park.

Picnic with familyor friends.

Try a new outdoor

sport.

Eat proper food.

Exercise more.

Diarise importantdates.

Put things in order.

Work on my life.

Item

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

No

10 minutes isn’t enough! Make them take me to lunch or dinner.

With a good cuppa and relaxing environment. Journals don’t count!

Run, or power walk… or maybe just walk. Hey, I made it to the park!

I will make the suggestion, they bring the food and stu.

Perhaps shing or sailing or water skiing or rock climbing or...? As

long as I don’t break my bones.

Reduce the sambal in my nasi lemak (and perhaps the nasi), butmore anchovies and cucumber. And denitely more H20.

Add another push-up to the 1 push-up daily, lift hands higher thanshoulder and try to bend down until my back actually bends!

ALWAYS update oce central diary, set reminders for everything(note: tell secretary to remind me of my wife’s birthday andanniversary and to put sticky notes on my table).

Proper ling for EVERYTHING at the oce.

1. don’t let that uncollected bill of RM5,000 happen again!!2. look out for receipts in drawer, for tax rebate.

I need a checklist for everything to make sure I did everything!!!

Ways to improve I’ve done it!

1818



19/3219

The Malaysian Bar MandatoryProfessional IndemnityInsurance (“PII”) Schemewas developed to oer equalprotection to all Members. Itis compulsory in nature, toensure not only the protectionof Members, but to also accordsome degree of security tothe general public.

The practice of law hasbecome increasingly complex,

and to top it o, competitionhas become even stronger.This greatly increases theresponsibility of the professionas a whole. The Schemeprovides adequate coveragefor Members. However, therewill be times when your Firm’sMandatory Limit is insucientto accommodate certainexposures. There will beinstances as well, where yourFirm decides that a higher

coverage will be best to putminds at ease.

Bar Council only regulates andoversees the Bar’s MandatoryPII. Any additional coverage,or Top-up Insurance, will haveto be purchased separately.Any payment, maintenanceand notication that isrequired to the Top-up Insureris between the purchasingMember and their Top-up

Insurer. Bar Council, throughthe PII Committee will notintervene should there be adispute between parties.

Bar Council does not havea list of Top-up Insurers nordoes it provide endorsementto any Insurer to provide Top-up to our Members. Membersare free to choose from theopen market, and make thebest decision they can with all

the information they have.

Top-Up Insurance

Your AdditionalRisk Transfer Tool

How does Top-Up Insurance Work?

In our Scheme, when a claim is notied to the Insurer, their rst step is toestablish policy liability under the Mandatory Policy. Should the MandatoryPolicy cover the claim, any amount payable by the Mandatory Insurer willonly be to the amount of your Firm’s Mandatory Limit of Indemnity.

If your rm’s Mandatory Limit is insucient to meet the claim, theadditional amount has to be met by your Firm. However, if your Firm haspurchased Top-up Insurance, this additional amount will be met by theTop-up policy insurer, up to the limit of the Top-up insurance purchased.

Some things to keep in mind:

1. Top-up insurance can be bought on a pro-rated basis.

2. It is important that any Top-up insurance you obtain is follow-form ofthe Scheme’s Mandatory Policy and wording, in that, the terms andconditions (coverage) are identical to your Mandatory Policy’s termsand conditions.

3. If you have purchased Top-upinsurance, the Top-up Insurer mustbe notied separately of any claims.This is to ensure that you do not

breach your Top-up Insurer’s policyconditions, which may negativelyaect your coverage.

4. Always keep your Top-up Insurer updated of your claim.

5. Certain types of Top-up policies may have exclusions which couldaect your claim.

6. Bar Council does not endorse any particular insurer/broker for thepurchase of Top-up insurance.

7. Prepare a checklist or procedure on how to manage a claim or potentialclaim, and make sure to include details of both your Mandatory andTop-up Insurer in the contact details. Be aware and take note of the

notication period.

Both the Mandatory andTop-up Insurer need tobe notied of a claim or

potential claim, and anyupdate to the claim.



20/3220

(a) Konik Kepentingan

(Conict of Interest)

Untuk menggambarkan secara ringkas subfasal ini, mari kita lihat Firma XYZ yangmempunyai lima peguam dengan BaseExcess tetap RM35,000. Jika Firma disaman

kerana telah bertindak dalam keadaanyang menimbulkan konik kepentingan,Syarikat Insurans akan menggenakan BaseExcess yang lebih tinggi iaitu RM100,000(kerana ini adalah jumlah yang lebih tinggiberbanding dengan mengenakan dua kaliganda Base Excess mereka) KECUALI jikaFirma menyediakan pengecualian bertulisdaripada klien.

Sekiranya digunakan, ini bermakna jikasesebuah Firma didapati bertanggungjawabuntuk membayar ganti rugi sebanyak

RM150,000 dan Firma itu tidak bolehmemberikan pengecualian bertulis,maka Firma perlu membayar RM100,000terhadap ganti rugi yang diawardkandan Syarikat Insurans akan membayarbaki RM50,000 termasuk menanggungkos pembelaan. Sekiranya tuntutan itumencapai satu penyelesaian, yang samaakan dikenakan.

Oleh itu, adalah sangat penting bagi Firmauntuk tidak mewakili dua atau lebih pihakyang kepentingannya bercanggah dalam

SEBARANG urus niaga. Mengekalkankesetiaan yang jelas dan tidak beratsebelah kepada dua tuan tidak pernahdicapai.

Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council adamenyebut mengenai Konik Kepentingandalam Bab 6, dimana amalan ini tidakdibenarkan untuk sebab yang baik.Walau bagaimanapun, jika kedua-duapihak meminta perwakilan yang sama,maka Firma itu perlu memastikan semuapihak bersetuju dan memahami kesannya

sebelum menandatangani pengecualian.

...Base Excess anda akan meningkat kepada jumlah yang tertentu dalam tiga keadaan?

SKIM MANDATORI PIIBADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA

TAHUKAHANDA?

Nota: Dalam COI 2015, Fasal

mengenai Base Excess adalahFasal 10, manakala pada tahun-tahun sebelumnya adalah Fasal 11.

Fasal 10 daripada Sijil Insurans (“COI”)

2015 menyatakan sebagai berikut:

The Base Excess specied in Item 9 ofthe Schedule shall be increased to theamounts specied below in the event ofany claim arising out of the followingcircumstances or events:

Conict of Interest:RM100,000 or 2 times the BaseExcess whichever is the highersubject to a maximum of RM300,000where you have acted for more

than one party to a transaction inrespect of conveyancing of landand/or buildings otherwise than inaccordance with Bar Council’s Rulesand Rulings as amended from time totime on conict of interest, applicableat the time of the transaction.

However the Base Excess shall applyin the event you had obtained writtenwaivers from the clients.

Conveyancing Base Excess:

RM50,000 minimum in respectof conveyancing of land and/orbuildings.

However the Base Excess shall applyif:

you had in place an implementedrisk management programmeat the time of the act, error oromission giving rise to the claim was committed; orit is adjudged by the Court thatthere is no civil liability arising

from the claim against the Firm;orthe claimant unconditionallywithdraws the claim against theFirm.

Dishonesty of Partner:RM20,000 multiplied by the numberof principles subject to a minimumof RM30,000 and a maximum ofRM250,000 per Firm in respect ofmisconduct of principals.

?

(a)

(b)

(c)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

20



21/32? 21

(b) Base Excess Pemindahhakan

(Conveyancing Base Excess) Dengan menggunakan Firma XYZ sekali lagisebagai contoh, sekiranya saman difailkanterhadap Firma di mana tuntutan timbuldaripada pemindahhakan tanah dan/ataubangunan, Base Excess Firma itu akanmeningkat kepada RM50,000 minimum.

Walau bagaimanapun, sekiranya Firma itu bolehmengemukakan kepada Syarikat Insuransulasan yang disokong dengan dokumen,contohnya bagaimana Firma menguruskan failpemindahhakan mereka, bilangan kakitanganpemindahhakan, pengagihan kerja dan tugas,

pengalaman, pengawasan dan pemantauankerja mereka, senarai semak yang dirujukoleh peguam pemindahhakan dan kakitangan,sistem SDP untuk memantau tarikh danlain-lain; dimana semua ini bertujuan untukmenunjukkan inisiatif pengurusan risikodan proses yang diambil Firma itu sewaktutindakan, kesilapan atau ketinggalan yangmenyebabkan berlakunya tuntutan itu.Syarikat Insurans akan mendapatkan nasihatbebas dan setelah berpuas hati, Base Excess asal Firma itu akan dikenakan semula.

Sekiranya digunakan, ini bermakna jikaFirma itu didapati bertanggungjawab untukmembayar ganti rugi sebanyak RM150,000dan Firma tidak mengemukakan dokumendi atas untuk mendapatkan kembali BaseExcess asal mereka semula, maka Firma ituperlu membayar RM50,000 terhadap gantirugi yang diberikan dan Syarikat Insuransakan membayar baki RM100,000 termasukmenanggung kos pembelaan. Sekiranyaperkara itu mencapai satu penyelesaian, yangsama akan dikenakan.

Sebab untuk tuntutan berkaitan pemindahhakan

dibincangkan secara khusus di bawah Fasal 10adalah kerana bidang undang-undang ini agakmudah dan sangat berprosedur, dan denganmenggunakan senarai semak, mengawal danmenerimapakai kaedah amalan standard untuksemua fail pemindahhakan, risiko kesilapandan kelalaian boleh dielakkan. Saman yangdifailkan terhadap Firma bagi perkara-perkarapemindahhakan berpunca dari peguam tidakmelakukan apa yang sepatutnya menjadilangkah-langkah asas yang perlu dilakukandalam pemindahhakan, sebaliknya peguamtelah memilih jalan pintas!

Antara lain, kegagalan untuk menjalankancarian tanah awal, dan kadang-kadang cariantanah sebelum pendaftaran, pemeriksaanidentiti yang secukupnya dilangkau dan kaveattidak dibuat.

(c) Ketidakjujuran Rakan

(Dishonesty of Partner) Base Excess yang dinaikkan seperti yangdinyatakan dalam Fasal 10(c) COI 2015 akandikenakan apabila Syarikat Insurans telahbersetuju untuk memberi perlindungankepada “Rakan-rakan yang tidak bersalah”apabila terdapat tuntutan yang timbuldaripada Ketidakjujuran Rakan kongsi. Walaubagaimanapun, Had Indemniti hanya setakatRM350,000 atau Had Mandatori Firma yangmana lebih rendah.

Bagi menggambarkan Fasal 10(c), mari kitalihat dua senario yang berbeza:

Senario 1: Firma OP adalah perkongsianantara dua orang, ini bermakna Base Excess Firma ini adalah RM20,000 dan Had IndemnitiMandatori adalah RM300,000. Dalam samanyang berjaya terhadap Firma OP, di manasalah seorang Rakan Kongsi itu didapati telahmelakukan satu perbuatan yang tidak jujurdengan menyalahgunakan wang (salah laku),perlindungan hanya akan diberikan kepadaRakan Kongsi yang lagi satu (“Rakan yangtidak bersalah”). Base Excess bagi Firma itu juga akan meningkat secara automatik kepadaRM40,000 bagi tuntutan ini dan tiada sebarangperubahan kepada Had Indemniti Firma.

Senario 2: Untuk perkongsian empat orang(Firma QRST), Base Excess Firma adalahRM30,500 dengan Had Indemniti Mandatorisebanyak RM400,000. Dalam keadaan yangsama seperti di atas, perlindungan akan hanyadiberikan kepada tiga “Rakan-rakan yangtidak bersalah”. Memandangkan Firm QRSTmempunyai empat Rakan Kongsi, Firma perlumembayar peningkatan Base Excess sebanyakRM80,000, dan Syarikat Insurans hanya akanmembayar sehingga maksimum RM350,000

sahaja bagi tuntutan ini.

Nota: Di bawah Skim Mandatori PII,perlindungan adalah tertakluk kepadaterma, pengecualian, had dan syarat-syarat Certicate of Insurance.

Terjemahan berkaitan ‘Master Policy ’, ‘Certicate of Insurance’ dan contohilustrasi adalah sebagai panduansahaja, dan sekiranya terdapat

perbezaan antara Bahasa Inggeris danterjemahan Bahasa Malaysia, versiBahasa Inggeris akan digunakan.



22/32

Siapa sangka senarai semak pembedahan yang mudah boleh menyelamatkanbanyak nyawa semasa pembedahan besar dijalankan? Senarai semakpembedahan direka oleh Pertubuhan Kesihatan Sedunia (“WHO”) pada tahun

2009 telah diuji di lapan bandar raya di seluruh dunia dan hasilnya mengejutkan;penggunaan senarai semak mengurangkan kematian pesakit lebih daripada40% dan komplikasi sewaktu pembedahan lebih daripada satu pertiga sewaktupembedahan besar. Dengan sejarah kejayaan yang besar dalam mengurangkanrisiko, senarai semak juga boleh digunakan sebagai alat untuk mengurus risikopeguam dengan berkesan.

Penggunaan senarai semak di kalangan peguam bukan baru. Malah kebanyakanpeguam sepatutnya mempunyai senarai semak yang tersedia sebelum merekamembuka fail baru atau mengambil tugas-tugas baru, terutamanya bagi perkara-perkara berkaitan pemindahhakan di mana kebanyakan prosedur adalah agaklurus. Untuk sebab-sebab ini, Majlis Peguam telah menghasilkan senarai semakpemindahhakan yang boleh membantu peguam untuk menjalankan kerja sehari-hari pemindahhakan mereka. Perlu diingatkan bahawa senarai semak ini hanya

sebagai panduan mengenai prosedur standard dan proses dalam bidang amalanyang berkaitan. Tiada sebarang penetapan khusus bagi sesuatu senarai semakdan harus digunakan secara bijaksana dengan penyesuaian mengikut keperluankhusus bagi setiap fail peguam.

Fasal 10(b) daripada SijilInsurans (“COI”) 2015memperuntukkan bahawaBase Excess untuk tuntutanyang melibatkan perkara-perkara pemindahhakan akandinaikkan kepada RM50,000minimum. Namun begitu,

Base Excess asal Firma akandikekalkan sekiranya AmalanYang Diinsuranskan (“IP”)boleh menunjukkan bahawaterdapat proses pengurusanrisiko sewaktu tindakan,kesilapan atau ketinggalanyang menyebabkan tuntutanitu berlaku. Segmen PIITahukah Anda? di halaman 20mempunyai maklumat lanjutmengenai fasal ini.

Kajian kes berikut adalah tuntutan sebenaryang lepas daripada Skim Insurans IndemnitiProfesional Bar Malaysia. Semua namadan tempat telah dubah untuk melindungiidentiti masing-masing.

Kami meneroka beberapakajian kes di mana IP telahberjaya disaman oleh kliendan/atau pihak ketiga yanglain, untuk gantirugi yangdialami kerana penyelewenganatau kecuaian dalam perkaraberkaitan pemindahhakan.

Syarikat Insurans menaikkanBase Excess setiap IP denganmengikut Fasal 10(b). Inibermaksud semua IP dalamhal yang berikut terpaksamenanggung bahagian yanglebih besar daripada liabiliti,terkecuali jika merekadapat membuktikan kepadaSyarikat Insurans yangmereka mempunyai amalanpengurusan risiko yangmencukupi dan protokol yangberkaitan.

Cara yang paling demonstratif IP bolehmenunjukkan kefahaman amalan pengurusanrisiko adalah dengan membuktikan kepadaSyarikat Insurans penggunaan senaraisemak dengan betul bagi tiap-tiap failpemindahhakan. Sebagai panduan lanjut,IP juga boleh memasukkan dan menjelaskanproses pengurusan risiko berikut kepada

Syarikat Insurans bagi mendapatkan semulaBase Excess asal:

• Pemeriksaan identiti terhadap penjual danpembeli.

• Pemeriksaan konik kepentingan sebelummembuka fail pemindahhakan.

• Pelaksanaan sistem diari berpusat untukmengesan tarikh-tarikh penting.

• Bila klien diberikan penjelasan penuhmengenai syarat-syarat Perjanjian Jual-Beli (“SPA”).

• Bila kaveat dilakukan, contoh selepasklien menandatangani SPA dan membayar

deposit.• Bila carian tanah dilakukan, contoh

sejurus sebelum menandatangani SPA danmelepaskan wang kepada penjual.

• Pelaksanaan sistem pengawasan yangsewajarnya antara peguam dan keranipemindahhakan.

• Peguam menyaksikan pengakusaksianpada dokumen pemindahhakan.

• Rakan-rakan Kongsi (atau pemilik tunggal)memeriksa fail pemindahhakan sebelumditandatangani.

Laksanakan dengan Betul

Senarai Semak untuk Setiap PerkaraOleh Shaq Sobri, Jardine Lloyd Thompson Sdn Bhd (versi Bahasa Inggeris)

22



23/3223

JANGANTUNGGULAMA-LAMA

Fred melantik Tetuan Doo dan Co(“IP”) untuk melaksakan pelepasankondominiumnya dari Bank ABC setelahpinjaman dengan bank tersebut selesai.Pihak bank telah mengemukakandokumen-dokumen yang berkaitandengan IP bagi tujuan tersebut.

Tiga bulan kemudian, Bank Xmemulakan prosiding kebankrapanterhadap Fred untuk mendapatkankembali jumlah penghakiman yangdihutang olehnya kepada pihakbank. Fred membuat keputusanuntuk membuat pembiayaan semulahartanahnya dengan Bank Z untukmembayar jumlah penghakimantersebut. Walau bagaimanapun, beliaudimaklumkan oleh pegawai pinjamandi Bank Z bahawa pembiayaan semulatidak dapat dilakukan kerana hartanah

itu masih dicaj kepada Bank ABC.

Terkejut dengan berita itu, Fredmemutuskan untuk menjalankansendiri carian tanah. Beliau mendapatibahawa kondominium beliau masihdicaj kepada Bank ABC walaupun padahakikatnya pinjaman dengan BankABC sudah diselesaikan dan bayaran

penuh yuran guaman kepada IP telahdibuat untuk hal ini.

Selepas itu, Fred telah diisytiharkanmuis kerana gagal menyelesaikansepenuhnya jumlah penghakimankepada Bank X. Fred menyaman IPdengan dakwaan kecuaian di pihakIP kerana gagal melepaskan hartanahtersebut. Beliau juga mendakwabahawa kecuaian IP menyebabkan diakehilangan peluang untuk membuatpembiayaan semula hartanahnyadan membayar jumlah penghakiman

kepada Bank X.

Senarai-senarai semak yang digunakan oleh IP tidak mempunyai maklumat untuktarikh matang atau tarikh akhir berkenaan dengan perkara-perkara susulan yangperlu dilakukan oleh IP.

Senarai-senarai semak terlalu generik. IP menyesuaikan senarai semakpembiayaan sub-jualan ke dalam senarai semak bagi hartanah yang dibelidaripada pemaju dan juga untuk pelepasan tanpa sebarang pengubahsuaian.

Senarai-senarai semak tertentu yang digunakan oleh IP untuk pemindahhakanfail tidak lengkap dan tidak menyeluruh. Sebagai contoh, senarai semak untuktransaksi jual beli dimana penjual atau pembeli merupakan sebuah syarikat, tidak

disebut tentang keperluan resolusi lembaga pengarah/resolusi pemegang sahamdan keperluan dokumen korporat lain.

IP tidak mempunyai sistem “Simpan Dalam Perhatian” (“SDP”) untuk mengesantarikh penting dan perkara-perkara yang mustahak.

Dalam mengkaji proses pengurusan risiko IPbagi menentukan jika Base Excess asal merekaboleh dikekalkan semula, Syarikat Insuransmendapati berikut:



24/3224

Chuckie, rakan kongsi di Tetuan Finster and Associates (“IP”)mewakili Tommy, pembeli dalam urusan jual-beli hartanah.

Ketika itu hartanah tersebut masih dicaj kepada Bank ABCsebagai cagaran bagi pinjaman yang diberikan kepadaAngelica, penjual dalam transaksi ini.

Bank ABC mengeluarkan penyata penebusan kepadaChuckie yang dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa jumlahpenebusan perlu diserahkan terus kepada bank. Chuckieturut menguruskan fail pemindahhakan lain untuk klien yangberbeza pada masa yang sama dan hanya menyedari bahawatarikh akhir untuk menyerahkan jumlah penebusan ke bankakan tamat tempoh dalam masa tiga hari; dan ini juga hanyaselepas diingatkan oleh Tommy.

Oleh kerana kesuntukan masa, Chuckiememutuskan untuk mendepositkan cek bagi jumlah wang penebusan dari bank pembiayaTommy terus ke akaun pinjaman Angelicadengan Bank ABC. Tanpa diketahui Chuckie,akaun pinjaman Angelica dengan Bank ABCmempunyai ciri-ciri unik yang membenarkannyauntuk mengeluarkan wang dari akaun pinjaman.Angelica membuat beberapa pengeluaran dariakaun tersebut selepas cek lulus. Hasilnya jumlahpenebusan yang tidak mencukupi untuk menebushartanah dari Bank ABC.

Chuckie hanya mengetahui perkara ini selepasdimaklumkan oleh Bank ABC bahawa hartanahitu akan dilelong kerana tiada pembayaranuntuk penebusan. Tommy yang hancur denganberita itu, mengambil keputusan untuk membuattuntutan guaman bagi kerugian yang disebabkanoleh kecuaian Chuckie ini.

Dalam mengkaji prosespengurusan risikoIP bagi menentukan jika Base Excess asal mereka boleh

dikekalkan semula,Syarikat Insuransmendapati berikut:

Walaupun IP menggunakan senarai semak untuk semua fail pemindahhakan,senarai semak tidak digunakan dengan lengkap. Senarai semak hanya mempunyai “tarikh selesai” dan tidak mempunyai “tarikh tamat tempoh”. Tiada bukti yangditemui menunjukkan IP memantau tarikh penting dan tarikh akhir.

Senarai semak dan penyata penebusan yang dibincangkan khusus menyatakan jumlah penebusan perlu dikemukakan terus kepada pihak bank. Walaupun dengankeperluan ini, IP mengemukakan cek untuk penebusan terus kepada vendor.

PERINGATAN YANG

BERHARGA



25/3225

Tina, pemilik tunggal Tetuan Belcher & Co (“IP”) telahdiarahkan oleh Teddy, kawan karibnya yang mempunyai

penyakit yang membawa maut untuk menyerahkanbeberapa hartanah yang dimilikinya kepada anggotakeluarganya. Teddy mempunyai dua keluarga dari duaperkahwinan yang berasingan dan kerana hubunganrumit keluarga ini, dia mengambil keputusan untuktidak menulis wasiat.

Tina menasihatkan Teddy untuk sekurang-kurangnyamenandatangani perjanjian retainer untuk mengelaksebarang komplikasi di masa depan. Namun begitu, Teddymenolak cadangan tersebut dan terus menandatanganiborang pemindahan dan serahhak. Teddy memberitahuTina mengenai penerima yang dimaksudkan danmengarah Tina untuk hanya mendapatkan tandatangan

mereka pada borang selepas kematiannya. Dia jugamengarahkan Tina untuk mendapatkan hakmilikhartanah dari anak tunggal hasil daripada perkahwinanpertamanya dan meletakkan tarikh kepada beberapahari sebelum tarikh kematiannya.

Teddy meninggal dunia sepuluh bulan kemudiandan seperti yang diarahkannya, Tina menjalankanamanahnya untuk mendapatkan hakmilik daripada anakTeddy dan memanggil semua penerima untuk memberitaklimat kepada mereka tentang kehendak dan arahanTeddy. Semua penerima daripada kedua-dua keluargatidak membantah perjanjian dan menandatangani

borang. Walau bagaimanapun, tiada sebarangpersetujuan bertulis yang diperolehi daripada semuapenerima untuk menerima dan bersetuju dengan urusanini. Tina mengundur tarikh borang kepada sebulansebelum kematian Teddy seperti yang diarahkan danmenghantar kepada pejabat tanah.

Tanpa dijangka, pejabat tanah menolak penyampaiantersebut dan memaklumkan bahawa isteri keduaTeddy dan anak perempuannya telah membuat kaveatpersendirian ke atas tiga hartanah yang bertujuanuntuk diberikan kepada waris pertama Teddy. Dalamcubaan Tina untuk menyelesaikan masalah dengankedua-dua keluarga, Tina telah menerima writ dari

isteri kedua Teddy mendakwanya bersubahat dengankeluarga pertama Teddy untuk menipu kelayakan yangsah terhadap hartanah tersebut.

Dalam mengkaji proses pengurusan risiko IP bagi menentukan jikaBase Excess asal mereka boleh dikekalkan semula, Syarikat Insuransmendapati berikut:

IP menggunakan senarai semak pemindahhakan dengan teliti dan memastikanbahawa tarikh akhir dan semua prasyarat untuk setiap perkara dipatuhisepenuhnya. Senarai-senarai semak juga mengikut senarai semak asas yangdicadangkan oleh Majlis Peguam.

Namun begitu tidak ada perjanjian bertulis, surat kebenaran atau perjanjianretainer untuk membuktikan bahawa IP melaksanakan tugasnya atas nasihat simati, atau bahawa penerima bersetuju dengan urusan tersebut.

Mengundur tarikh dokumen juga dianggap tidak beretika kerana memberigambaran palsu bahawa dokumen telah dilaksanakan sebelum kematian Teddy.

BERSEMADI DENGAN

TENANG



26/32

Tetuan Turner and Associates (“IP”) merupakan peguampanel bagi Bank ABC dan mengendali transaksi pinjamankomersial bagi pihak bank. Pada tahun 2013, CosmoProperty Pty Ltd (“Cosmo”) berjumpa dengan pihakbank untuk mendapatkan pinjaman komersial berjumlahRM1,700,000. Jaminan terhadap pinjaman itu adalahsebuah bangunan pejabat milik Cosmo. Timmy,rakan kongsi IP menyediakan perjanjian pinjaman danmemeriksa dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan daripadaCosmo. Setelah dokumen itu didapati berada dalamsusunan, Timmy mengarahkan bank untuk melepaskanwang kepada Cosmo.

Selepas pinjaman dilepaskan kepada Cosmo, Timmymenerima panggilan telefon daripada salah seorangpengarah Cosmo yang memberitahu bahawa syarikat itutidak pernah memohon apa-apa pinjaman daripada BankABC. Para pengarah Cosmo tidak pernah melaksanakandokumen pinjaman jauh sekali meluluskan resolusilembaga pengarah untuk menerima pinjaman dari Bank

ABC!

Terkejut dengan pendedahan ini, IP menghubungi peguamyang mewakili Cosmo dalam transaksi ini. Didapatibahawa peguam yang mewaklil pihak Cosmo telahditipu oleh dua orang yang menyamar sebagai pengarahCosmo. Penyamar-penyamar tersebut mengemukakankad pengenalan palsu yang mempunyai nama yang samadengan pengarah Cosmo. Resolusi lembaga pengarah

yang diberikan oleh penyamar juga didapati palsu.

Para pengarah memfailkan injunksi untuk menghalangBank ABC dan IP dari menggadai harta syarikat itu bagipinjaman yang diberikan kepada penyamar. Oleh itu,

Bank ABC mengalami kerugian dan menyaman IP untukkecuaian.

USAHASEBAIK MUNGKIN

26

Senarai semak digunakan oleh IP adalah komprehensif dan mengikut

senarai semak asas yang dicadangkan oleh Majlis Peguam.

Sebagai satu keperluan dalam senarai semak, IP meminta pengesahandaripada setiausaha syarikat Cosmo untuk mengesahkan maklumatkorporatnya.

Senarai semak yang digunakan oleh IP khusus untuk fail ini tidakmempunyai sebarang keperluan untuk mendapatkan pengesahanketulenan resolusi lembaga pengarah daripada setiausaha syarikat.Walau bagaimanapun, IP boleh mengambil satu langkah ke hadapandengan mendapatkan pengesahan tersebut untuk memastikan kesahihanresolusi lembaga pengarah yang diberikan kepada mereka.

Dalam mengkaji proses pengurusan risiko IPbagi menentukan jika Base Excess asal merekaboleh dikekalkan semula, Syarikat Insuransmendapati berikut:



27/32

USAHAYANG BERBALOI

27

Senarai semak yang digunakan oleh IP untuk fail pemindahhakan mereka sangatkomprehensif dan mengikut seperti yang dicadangkan oleh Majlis Peguam.

Senarai semak itu termasuk garis masa kritikal seperti tarikh SPA, tarikh selesaiSPA, penyerahan pulangan cukai keuntungan hartanah kepada Lembaga HasilDalam Negeri, pembayaran perbezaan jumlah wang untuk pembeli, penerimaanpenyata penebusan daripada bank pembiaya, pembebasan jumlah penebusankepada pembiaya Penjual, pelepasan jumlah pinjaman oleh bank pembiaya danpembayaran baki harga belian kepada Penjual.

Dari senarai semak, Syarikat Insurans telah dapat memastikan bahawa IPadalah teliti dan berhati-hati dengan cara mereka mengendalikan transaksimemandangkan IP mengawasi tarikh dan proses penting.

Tetuan Korra and Associates (“IP”) telah dinamakansebagai Defendan Ketiga dalam writ yang difailPihak Menuntut yang mendakwa IP terlibat dalamkomplot untuk menewaskan pelaksanaan suatu awardtimbangtara terhadap Defendan Pertama.

Semuanya bermula apabila IP mewakili DefendanKedua untuk membeli beberapa hartanah daripadaDefendan Pertama. Walau bagaimanapun, kedua-duaIP dan Defendan Kedua tidak mengetahui bahawa PihakMenuntut diaward gantirugi daripada satu prosidingtimbangtara antara Pihak Menuntut dengan DefendanPertama.

Beberapa tahun sebelum ini, Pihak Menuntutmemperoleh award timbangtara untuk RM1,000,000berhubung dengan pertikaian tanah dengan DefendanPertama. Pihak Menuntut membuat permohonankepada Mahkamah Tinggi untuk menguatkuasakanaward timbangtara terhadap Defendan Pertama dan ini

telah dibenarkan.

Walau bagaimanapun, sebelum Pihak Menuntut dapatmenguatkuasakan award itu, Defendan Pertamamenjual sebahagian daripada tanah yang mana tidakdirekodkan dalam audit akaun kepada Defendan Kedua.Pihak Menuntut mendakwa bahawa pelupusan tanahtersebut akan mengakibatkan mereka tidak dapatmenuntut gantirugi yang diberikan dibawah awardtimbangtara. Pihak menuntut memfailkan writ danmendakwa Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua danIP telah bersepakat untuk melesapkan tanah-tanahtersebut untuk menewaskan award timbangtara yangdiberikan kepada Pihak Menuntut.

Nota: Tanah yang dibeli oleh Defendan Kedua daripadaDefendan Pertama tidak pernah menjadi sebahagain

daripada tanah yang dipertikai.

Dalam mengkaji proses pengurusan risiko IP bagi menentukan jikaBase Excess asal mereka boleh dikekalkan semula, Syarikat Insuransmendapati berikut:



28/32

Danny Fenton daripada Tetuan Fentondan Co (“IP”) mewakili Jasmine,pembeli untuk menyediakan SPAdalam transaksi pemindahhakan.Penjual, Maddie tidak diwakilitetapi telah dibantu oleh anakperempuan dan anak menantunya.Selepas deposit dibayar kepadaMaddie, Danny meneruskan untukmengemukakan Borang Pindahmilikke pejabat tanah.

Selepas Borang Pindahmilik telah berjaya dikemukakan, Maddie melaluipeguam barunya memilih untuk menamatkan SPA dan melepaskandepositnya. Peguam Maddie juga menuntut Danny mengembalikan hakmilikkepada Maddie dan mengugut akan membuat aduan dengan LembagaTatatertib terhadap Danny sekiranya gagal memenuhi tuntutan berkenaan.

Jasmine bertegas untuk meneruskan transaksi dan meminta Danny

mengemukakan baki harga belian kepada peguam Maddie untukmelengkapkan transaksi. Walau bagaimanapun, baki harga beliandipulangkan kembali. Jasmine merancang untuk mencabar penamatantersebut dan mengarah Danny memfailkan writ pelaksanaan spesik.

Maddie, yang tekad dengan penamatan itu membuat keputusan untuk memfailwrit terhadap Danny dan IP. Antara lain dakwaan Maddie adalah bahawaDanny mewakili kedua-dua penjual dan pembeli dalam transaksi tersebut.Beliau juga mendakwa Danny melanggar SPA kerana kegagalan untukmemulangkan hakmilik dan dokumen lain yang berkaitan selepas penamatanSPA dan dengan niat jahat, mengemukakan hakmilik untuk dipindahkantanpa maklumannya walaupun mengetahui SPA telah ditamatkan.

Dalam mengkaji prosespengurusan risikoIP bagi menentukan jika Base Excess asal mereka boleh

dikekalkan semula,Syarikat Insuransmendapati berikut:

SUDAH JATUH

DITIMPA

TANGGA

2828

IP menggunakan senarai semak yang komprehensif dengan teliti.

Senarai semak ini jelas menyatakan bahawa IP hanya bertindak bagi pihakJasmine, pembeli.

IP turut mengawasi semua tarikh-tarikh penting bagi proses-proses dalamtransaksi ini, dengan itu mampu menunjukkan bahawa Borang Pindahmilik yangdikemukakan tidak dilakukan dengan niat jahat kerana mereka hanya menerima

notis penamatan daripada penjual selepas dikemukakan di pejabat tanah.



29/322929

Tetuan Wakeman dan Carbuckle(“IP”) mewakili pembeli, Sheldonuntuk menyediakan SPA bagi sebuahhartanah kediaman. Penjual,Tremorton Pty Ltd (“Tremorton”) tidakdiwakili peguam. Dua bulan selepaspelaksanaan SPA, Sheldon mendapatibahawa hartanah itu dilelong oleh

Bank ABC.

Sheldon memfailkan writ terhadapIP yang menuntut ganti rugi danmendakwa IP melanggar kewajipanberjaga-jaga dengan memberikangambaran yang salah dan memberinasihat kepadanya bahawa hartanahitu bebas daripada sebarang bebanan.Beliau juga mendakwa bahawa IPgagal membuat carian tanah yangbetul dan gagal untuk membuatkaveat persendirian bagi menjaminkepentingannya.

IP mengakui bahawa SPA tersebutmengandungi bahagian yangmenyebut bahawa hartanah itu bebasdaripada sebarang bebanan. Namunbegitu apabila IP menyedari terdapatkesilapan, IP memutuskan untukmembuat pembetulan kepada SPAsecara manual dan memasukkanbahagian yang mengatakan hartanahitu telah dicaj kepada Bank ABC.SPA itu juga mempunyai satu klausamengenai penebusan hartanah itu.Pencarian tanah yang dilakukan olehIP juga mengesahkan kedudukan

harta yang dicaj kepada Bank ABCpada masa itu.

Memandangkan Sheldon bukanwarganegara Malaysia, kebenarandaripada Pihak Berkuasa Negeridiperlukan sebelum kemukaan bolehdibuat. IP menghadapi beberapa

kesukaran untuk mendapatkankebenaran kerana Tremorton tidakmemberikan resit cukai tanah dancukai pintu untuk hartanah tersebut.IP juga tidak dapat membuatkaveat persendirian kerana Sheldontidak menyediakan wang yangmencukupi bagi maksud itu. Walaubagaimanapun, IP memutuskan untukmembuat kaveat menggunakan wangmereka terlebih dahulu sementaramenunggu wang daripada Sheldon.

Oleh kerana kebenaran tidakdapat diperoleh dalam masa yangditentukan, wang penebusan tidakdapat dikemukakan kepada BankABC. Bank ABC telah memilihuntuk menggunakan hak merekadan melelong hartanah itu. IPmemaklumkan Sheldon bahawa diaboleh menggunakan haknya danmenamatkan SPA pada ketika itu.Namun Sheldon berdiam diri dantidak memberikan apa-apa arahankepada IP. Hanya selepas hartanahitu berjaya dilelong, IP menerima writdari Sheldon.

Senarai semak pemindahhakan yang digunakan oleh IP adalah umum dan tidak khusus untuk transaksiini. IP sepatutnya mengambil langkah-langkah tambahan untuk mendapatkan kebenaran daripadaPihak Berkuasa Negeri.

Senarai semak itu menyatakan bahawa penjual, walaupun tidak diwakili, perlu bertanggungjawabuntuk mendapatkan kebenaran daripada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri. Langkah ini sepatutnya dipenuhipada masa pelaksanaan SPA. Walau bagaimanapun kerana kedua-dua pihak telah menandatanganiborang persetujuan pada hari SPA dikemukakan, pengecualian ini diterima.

Walaupun IP membuat pembetulan secara manual dalam SPA untuk memastikan kedudukan hartanah jelas dilihat sebagai dicaj kepada Bank ABC, IP gagal untuk membuat pembetulan dan memindasalinan-salinan lain SPA.

Kaveat tidak dibuat dengan serta-merta atau dalam tempoh terdekat selepas SPA dilaksanakan.

Senarai semak yang digunakan oleh IP menetapkan bahawa syarat kaveat itu hanya akan dibuatselepas klien membayar bil-bil yang berkaitan, dan sebelum menghantar SPA untuk disetem. Walaupunpembeli tidak menyediakan wang yang secukupnya untuk membuat kaveat, IP masih mampu untukmemfailkan kaveat ke atas hartanah itu bagi melindungi kepentingan pembeli dengan menggunakanwang mereka sendiri.

DI SINIADA

DI SANA TIADA

Dalam mengkaji proses pengurusan risiko IP bagi menentukan jika Base Excess asal mereka boleh dikekalkan semula, Syarikat Insurans mendapati berikut:



30/32


31/32

(c) Publication – Jurisk!

Jurisk! has become a bi-annual publication focusing on dierent practice related issues in each publication.The newsletter features case studies of actual claims from the Scheme, practice tips and a variety ofideas to improve a rm’s practice management.

(d) START Kit

(e) Others

A brieng on PII and risk management is delivered at every Ethics Course in Kuala Lumpur to explainits relevance and importance. Pupils are taken through the PII Scheme, type of cover and how to avoidclaims.

An explanation of the PII Scheme is also provided at selected CPD events as and when required.Participants have the opportunity to understand the Scheme better and seek clarication on PII coverage.

Establish! Enhance! Improve!

The rst issue of the year emphasized the importanceof risk management and to inform Members of theamendments made to the 2015 COI.

The Humble Checklist!

The second issue revolves around the importance ofchecklists, especially when handling conveyancing les.

Since its introduction in 2011, START Kit has beenaggressively distributed to new rms upon obtainingtheir “no objection” letter from Bar Council and pupilsattending Ethics Course. The kit consists of Best PracticeGuides (Setting Up Practice, Accounting for Lawyers, TimeManagement for Lawyers and Law Practice Management),Practice Area Checklist CD-ROM, Oce Management DVD-ROM and the Start File (consisting of 4 booklets).

31



32/32

Your one stop riskmanagement solution

Learn everythingabout your PII with

our FAQs section

Learn to manageyour Firm andyourself better with

our Managementresources

Submit your writtennotication with a clickof a button

Easier, faster and moreecient alternative

to renewing your PII

Download pastissues of Jurisk!

Click, save and printour customised

Practice Area Checklists

Register your emailto receive up-to-dateinformation on yourPII and periodicalPractice Alerts!

WHY

USE OUR

ONLINE

PORTAL?

www.PRAKTIS.com.my

[email protected]

[email protected]

Jurisk! Dec 2015 - FINAL Approved

Documents

Transcript of Jurisk! Dec 2015 - FINAL Approved