The Singapore Law Gazette

Disciplinary Tribunal Reports

Pursuant to section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.

This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.

In Matter of Cheng Kim Kuan (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a breach of a solicitor’s written undertaking given by him to the Council of the Law Society of Singapore on 12 May 2021 to be the supervising solicitor for a fellow solicitor, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (Mr Ravi). Such undertaking was held out as having been made pursuant to rules 8(3) and 13(4) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015. On the strength of the Solicitor’s Undertaking signed by the Respondent, and on undertakings signed by Mr Ravi and his Monitoring Solicitor, Mr Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan, a Conditional Practising Certificate was issued to Mr Ravi for Practice Year 2021/2022 (the Conditional Practising Certificate).
2. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge and First Alternative Charge

Breaching the undertaking to inter alia personally supervise Mr Ravi’s practice as an advocate and solicitor in his law firm, as well as allowing Mr Ravi to have sole conduct of all the legal matters and not vetting any of his legal submissions and/or affidavits and/or correspondence and in particular, not personally supervising the conduct of HC/OS 1025/2021 and HC/SUM 4742/2021, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA);
2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Second Charge and Second Alternative Charge

Breaching the undertaking to inter alia seek prior leave of court for any change to the arrangement whereby Mr Ravi practises, in that the Respondent failed to seek leave of court to amend the Conditions imposed on the Conditional Practising Certificate to only practise under the Respondent’s personal supervision and out of the registered address, by allowing Mr Ravi to practise out of another address and to have sole conduct of his legal matters, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA;
2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Third Charge and Third Alternative Charge

Breaching the undertaking to inter alia provide “a monthly report within the first working day of every calendar month attesting to whether Mr Ravi has compiled with all applicable professional conduct rules and that no complaint in relation to Mr Ravi’s professional conduct has been received”, by failing to submit the November 2021 Supervising Solicitor’s Report by its due date on 1 December 2021, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA;
2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Fourth Charge and Fourth Alternative Charge

Breaching the undertaking to inter alia immediately notify the Law Society and AGC if he became aware of any circumstances that may impair the fitness or professional judgement of Mr Ravi where he failed to comply with all applicable professional conduct rules or if any complaint in relation to Mr Ravi’s professional conduct is received, or failed to comply with any condition of the Conditional Practicing Certificate, failing to immediately notify the Law Society and the AGC that Mr Ravi has orally rejected seeking his written approval of any legal matters that he had wished to take on, as well as to refrain from making social media postings, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA;
2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Fifth Charge and Fifth Alternative Charge

Breaching the undertaking to inter alia take all necessary steps to ensure that Mr Ravi complies with all the conditions imposed on the Conditional Practising Certificate, by failing to (i) Vet all correspondence affidavits, legal submissions emanating from Mr Ravi, (ii) scrutinise Mr Ravi’s caseload to ensure that he had the capacity to take on legal matters, and (iii) supervise Mr Ravi’s caseload at all material times, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA;
2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Sixth Charge and Sixth Alternative Charge

Breaching the undertaking to take all necessary steps to ensure that Mr Ravi complies with all the conditions imposed on the Conditional Practising Certificate, including to have personally supervise Mr Ravi’s practice, by failing, neglecting and/or refusing to take adequate measures to address Mr Ravi’s potential breaches of the PCR and to comply with the Conditions to, amongst others, personally supervise Mr Ravi’s practice, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA;
2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

3. The DT found that the First and Third Charges were made out against the Respondent and cause of sufficient gravity existed, and acquitted him of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Charges.
4. The Council adopted the DT’s findings.

Court of Three Judges

5. The Court of Three Judges found that due cause was established with respect to the First and Third Charges and suspended the Respondent for six months commencing from 1 January 2024, and awarded costs of the proceedings and the DT below to the Law Society at a total of $12,000.

To access the full report click here.

---

In the Matter of Rai Vijay Kumar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present proceedings against the Respondent arose from statements made by the Respondent about the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean (the Judge) and/or members of the Appellate Division of the High Court.
2. The Respondent acted for the plaintiff, one Ms Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman (Ms Noor) in a claim against Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and other defendants, which was heard before the Judge. After Ms Noor’s passing, her brother was added as a party to continue the action in his capacity as executor of her estate (the Estate). The Respondent had conduct of the matter for the Estate. The Estate commenced an appeal (the Appeal), which was allocated to be heard by the Appellate Division of the High Court. Whilst arguing the Appeal, the Respondent made statements that undermined public confidence in the administration of justice and in the Singapore judicial system (the Statements).
3. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Kenneth Tan SC and Mr Paul Wong as DT member.
4. The Law Society proffered against the Respondent one charge and one alternative charge as follows:

Charge (the Charge)

For breach of rule 13(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, in that the Respondent made statements against the Judge and/or members of the Appellate Division of the High Court that were disrespectful towards the Honourable Court, amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA).

Alternative Charge (the Alternative Charge)

For making of statements against the Judge and/or members of the Appellate Division of the High Court which were disrespectful towards the Honourable Court, amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Findings by the DT, Council’s Sanction

5. The DT noted that the objective meaning of the Statements, in the context in which they were made, were disrespectful to the Court, as they alleged a bias or alleged bias on the part of the Judge and/or the Appellate Division.
6. The DT found that the Respondent had levelled allegations of bias against the Judge and members of the Appellate Division and suggested a lack of actual impartiality or an inability to remain impartial without any proper basis for doing so, and the Charge therefore had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The DT found that, although strictly not necessary, they still find the Respondent guilty of the Alternative Charge.
7. The DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the LPA that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under section 83 of the LPA, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$2,000.
8. The DT had determined pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act and ordered the Respondent pay the Law Society costs of $6,500 (inclusive of disbursements).
9. Pursuant to section 94(3)(i) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $2,000.

To access the full report click here.

---

In the Matter of Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from information referred by the Attorney-General on the Respondent’s conduct in relation to the false attestation of having witnessed the signing of mortgage documents by a client when he had not personally done so. The Respondent had never met the client, and left his secretary to witness the signing of the mortgage documents.
2. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Kuah Boon Theng SC and Sanjiv Rajan as DT member.
3. The following charges were preferred at the onset of the proceedings:

First Charge and First Alternative Charge

Falsely representing that he had witnessed the signature of his client as it appeared on the mortgage instrument by signing as witness to his signature, and thereafter signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the mortgage instrument, when he had in fact not personally witnessed his client sign the mortgage instrument

1. Thereby being guilty of improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act)
2. Thereby being guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate or solicitor (sic) of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act

Second Charge and Second Alternative Charge

Recklessly or negligently certifying that the client had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity by signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the transfer instrument in his capacity as his client’s solicitor, when he had in fact never personally confirmed that the client had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity, had left the preparation of the transfer instrument to his staff, and did not check the contents of the transfer instrument before signing the Certificate of Correctness.

1. Thereby being guilty of improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act
2. Thereby being guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate or solicitor (sic) of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act

Findings and Determination of the DT

4. The DT found that on the facts, the First Charge and Second Alternative Charge were made out beyond a reasonable doubt. The DT was of the view that the Second Charge was not made out as the Respondent’s conduct, while improper, was not grossly improper.
5. The DT noted that if the Alternative Second Charge was being considered on its own, it may have been persuaded that cause of sufficient gravity may not be established, and the matter could be referred back to the Society to consider the appropriate sanction.
6. However, as the DT found that cause of sufficient gravity existed on the 1^st Charge, and both charges related to a single conveyancing transaction for which the Respondent was the solicitor in charge, the DT was of the view that the conviction on both the First Charge and the Alternative Second Charge should be considered holistically in terms of what sanction would be appropriate to impose.
7. Therefore, the DT found that in relation to both the First Charge and Second Alternative Charge, cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Act.
8. The Court of Three Judges ordered the Respondent to be suspended for a period of three years, and for the Respondent to bear the costs of the Society, to be taxed if not agreed.

To access the full report click here.