IN THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION
AT SUVA

ILSC CASE NO. 017 OF 2022

BETWEEN	:	SHEIK NIZAMUL SAHIB
APPLICANT

AND		:	ARMISH AMENDRA PAL
RESPONDENT

AND		:	THE CHIEF REGISTRAR
									AMICUS CURIAE

Counsel	:	Applicant in Person 
			Respondent in Person
Ms A Vikash for the Chief Registrar

Date of Hearing:	4 March 2025
Date of Decision:	4 April 2025 

DECISION
(Reasons)

[1]	Sheik Nizamul Sahib is a former Fiji citizen who now resides in Australia. He engaged Armish Amendra Pal of AP Legal to represent him in a family legal dispute with his mother and siblings concerning their deceased father’s estate. The dispute ended up in the court. It is not clear whether the substantive dispute has been resolved or not.  

[2]	Being unsatisfied with the conduct of his counsel, Mr Sahib made a complaint of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct against the legal practitioner to the Chief Registrar. The Legal Practitioners Unit investigated the complaint and concluded that the complaint lacked substance.  Mr Sahib was informed of the outcome in writing accordingly.

[3]	After the Chief Registrar summarily dismissed the complaint, Mr Sahib commenced disciplinary proceedings against Mr Pal before the Commission pursuant to section 110(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act. 

[4]	I virtually heard Mr Sahib regarding his complaint against Mr Pal via Skype and called for the investigation report on Mr Pal by the Legal Practitioners Unit.  I have read and considered Mr Pal’s detailed response to Mr Sahib’s complaint against him that was submitted to the Chief Registrar. 

[5]	Apart from the dispute regarding the bill of costs I agree with the Chief Registrar that Mr Sahib’s complaint against Mr Pal lacks substance. 

[6]	For these reasons, the proceedings before the Commission are terminated. 

[7]	The issue regarding taxation of costs is referred to the Chief Registrar to resolve. The LPU’s Investigation Report contains the necessary documents for the purpose of taxation. 

[8]	ILSC, Secretary to forward a copy of this decision to the parties. 

.........................................
Justice Daniel Goundar
 							  	COMMISSIONER

Solicitors:
Applicant in Person
Respondent in Person
Legal Practitioners Unit appearing as Amicus Curiae