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 the Matter of Seah Choon Huat Johnny (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint lodged against the Respondent by his client (the Complainant) in respect of his conduct as an Advocate and Solicitor, and in relation to his representation of the Complainant in her divorce proceedings.
2. Following the dissolution of the Complainant’s marriage, the Respondent filed a summons to vary the divorce order (the Variation Summons).
3. The Respondent failed to attend the scheduled Case Conference for the Variation Summons. As a result, the Variation Summons never proceeded to any further hearing, and the divorce order was never varied.
4. Thereafter, the Complainant appointed a new set of solicitors (the new solicitors) to take over conduct of the matter from the Respondent’s firm. The new solicitors wrote to the Respondent’s firm seeking an urgent handover of documents in the Respondent’s possession. Despite repeated reminders, the Respondent’s firm failed to handover any documents to the new solicitors, leading to the new solicitors filing an Originating Summons seeking orders for the Respondent to deliver up to the Complainant all information and documents.
5. The following were the main charges held against the Respondent, referenced from section 83(2)(b) of the Act for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty as an advocate and solicitor:

First Charge

The Respondent failed to act timeously on the Complainant’s instruction to vary the divorce order and had failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed of the progress of the Variation Summons, breaching Rules 5(2)(c), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).

Second Charge

The Respondent failed to attend the Case Conference in the Variation Summons without reasonable justification or notice to the Complainant, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(c) and 5 (2)(e) of the PCR.

Third Charge

The Respondent failed to respond and/or comply with the new solicitors’ repeated requests to take over conduct of the matter, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) and/or 7(2) of the PCR.

Findings of the DT

6. The DT found that the First Charge was made out in that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rules 5(2)(c), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) and/or 5(2)(h) of the PCR, and amounted to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Act, and there was cause for sufficient gravity.
7. The DT found that the Second Charge had been made out in that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rules 5(2)(c) and 5(2)(e) of the PCR, and amounted to improper conduct under s 83(2)(b) of the Act, and there was cause for sufficient gravity.
8. The DT was satisfied that the Third Charge was made out, and that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rules 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) and/or 7(2) of the PCR amounting to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Act, and there was cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act.
9. The DT also ordered the Respondent to pay costs to the Law Society fixed at $8,000 plus reasonable disbursements.

Court of Three Judges

10. The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of four years commencing immediately after the conclusion of the Respondent’s six-month suspension ordered in C3J/OA 1/2023, and for the Respondent to pay costs and disbursements to the Law Society in the sum of S$20,500.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Andrew John Hanam (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint lodged by a director (the Complainant) of a company (the Company).
2. The Respondent had been engaged to represent the Company in three lawsuits (the three lawsuits).
3. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge – For charging the Complainant fees which were in excess and disproportionate to what he was fairly entitled to charge for the services rendered, thereby breaching Rule 17(7) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).

Second Charge – For failing to properly and periodically advise the Complainant of the anticipated legal fee that might be incurred in representing the Company in the three lawsuits, failing to properly and periodically evaluate with the Complainant whether any consequence of the matters involving the Complainant and/or the Company justified the expense of, or the risk involved in, pursuing the matters in litigation throughout the Material Time, and failed to properly and periodically evaluate with the Complainant the use of alternative dispute resolution processes throughout the Material Time, and despite such failures, proceeded to bill the Company a total of $423,880.96 (including GST and disbursements), thereby breaching Rule 17(2)(e) of the PCR.

Third Charge – For failing to properly and periodically advise the Complainant of the relevant legal issues in the three lawsuits throughout the Material Time, such that the Complainant was able to make an informed decision about how to act in those matters at the Material Time, thereby breaching Rule 17(2)(f) of the PCR.

Fourth Charge – For failing to inform the Complainant in writing in or around February 2017 of the Complainant’s right to apply to court to have all of the Respondent’s invoices taxed, when the Complainant raised questions and/or dispute on the Respondent’s invoices, thereby breaching Rule 17(5) of the PCR.

Fifth Charge – For failing to inform the Complainant in writing in or around January 2019 of the Complainant’s right to apply to court to have all of the Respondent’s invoices taxed, when the Complainant raised questions and/or dispute on the Respondent’s invoices, thereby breaching Rule 17(5) of the PCR.

Sixth Charge – for failing to properly advise the Complainant of the anticipated legal fee that might be incurred in representing the Company in the three lawsuits throughout the Material Time, and/or properly and periodically advise the Complainant of the relevant legal issues in the three lawsuits throughout the Material Time such that the Complainant was able to make an informed decision about how to act in those matters at the Material Time, and/or (iii) to evaluate properly and periodically with the Complainant throughout the Material Time whether any consequence of the matters involving the Complainant and/or the Company justified the expense of, or the risk involved in, pursuing the matters in litigation, and/or (iv) properly and periodically evaluate with the Complainant the use of alternative dispute resolution processes throughout the Material Time, and/or failed to keep accurate timesheets for the work done in the three lawsuits, such that the said total bill can be justified, and despite such failures, proceeded to bill the Company a total of $423,880.96 (including GST and disbursements), thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(c) of the PCR.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

4. The DT directed that the hearing of the First Charge would be stayed until the disputed fees were taxed and the Law Society applies to proceed with the First Charge.
5. The DT found that the Second and Third Charges were made out and there was cause for sufficient gravity. The DT found that the Fourth and Fifth Charges were not made out.
6. As the Law Society had taken the position that it would not proceed with the Sixth Charge if the Second and Third Charges were found to be made out, the Sixth Charge was deemed to be withdrawn by the Law Society.

Court of Three Judges

7. The Court of Three Judges found that due cause for disciplinary action was established for the Second and the Third Charges, and ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of nine months. The Respondent was also ordered to pay costs and disbursements to the Law Society in the sum of S$32,000.00.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Ezekiel Peter Latimer (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint lodged by three Complainants, Chung Fook Keong Melvin (Mr Chung), Doan Thi Thanh Thuy (Ms Thuy) and Pang Kia Phoo (Mr Pang), in respect of his conduct as an advocate and solicitor and in relation to events that took place between 2016 and 2019.
2. The complaint is grouped into two categories: (a) Ms Thuy’s appointment as a director of a Company (the Company); and (b) the Respondent’s conduct of a lawsuit (the Lawsuit), which was commenced by Ms Thuy and Mr Chung.
3. The Respondent had previously been engaged by Ms Thuy and Mr Chung in a separate matter. Later, the Respondent approached Ms Thuy to be a director of the Company, to which Ms Thuy agreed. The Respondent had been engaged to act for the Company.
4. Before agreeing she asked if it was safe for her to be a director of the Company. She was unaware that the Company had an ongoing legal case with another company (the Creditor), in which the Creditor subsequently obtained final judgment against the Company, and filed an application against the Company for the examination of judgement debtor (EJD). The Court made several orders for Ms Thuy to attend Court to be orally examined on the debts of the Company, which she failed to attend.
5. The Creditor commenced committal proceedings against Ms Thuy for breach of EJD orders. The Respondent filed another Notice of Appointment to represent Ms Thuy as a non-party, but neither Ms Thuy nor the Respondent attended the hearing on 2 April 2018. As a result, a warrant of arrest was issued against Ms Thuy, which was discharged by the Court subject to conditions which included the requirement that Ms Thuy must provide security and surrender her passport to the Sheriff.
6. Ms Thuy’s application seeking a release of her passport was granted on condition that a surety be provided to secure the return of her passport after 30 days. Pursuant to this, the Respondent gave a personal undertaking to the Court (Personal Undertaking).

Facts in Relation to the Respondent’s Conduct of the Lawsuit

7. In or around 2017, Mr Chung and Ms Thuy engaged the Respondent to commence the Lawsuit. In the course of proceedings, the Defendants’ solicitors requested a copy of the documents in the Plaintiffs’ list of documents.
8. Subsequently, the Defendants obtained an order for specific discovery against Ms Thuy and Mr Chung, which also ordered that unless Ms Thuy and Mr Chung filed and served the affidavit and exhibits they were directed to disclose by a specified date, their claims against the Defendants would be dismissed without further order (Unless Order). Instead of arranging for Ms Thuy and Mr Chung to depose to the affidavit as directed in the Unless order, the Respondent filed a solicitor’s affidavit in purported compliance with the Unless Order. However, the Court found that this was not in compliance with the Unless Order and consequently that Ms Thuy and Mr Chung were in breach of the Unless Order. The claim in the Lawsuit was therefore dismissed and Ms Thuy and Mr Chung were ordered to pay the Defendants the costs of the proceedings fixed at S$5,500.
9. Following these orders, the Respondent filed summonses to: (1) appeal the striking out of the claim in the Lawsuit; and (2) seek leave to file the Notice of Appeal out of time. However, the Respondent withdrew both summonses. As a result, multiple costs orders were made against Ms Thuy and Mr Chung, totaling to a sum of S$7,800 (Costs Orders). This led to the Defendants filing a Writ of Seizure and Sale (WSS) to enforce the Costs Orders, which was duly executed when various assets belonging to Ms Thuy were seized on 17 October 2018, with such assets having been pledged to Mr Pang previously.
10. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

Failing to disclose to Ms Thuy information that would reasonably affect her interests, thereby breaching rule 5(2)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (Cap 161) (PCR).

Second Charge

Failing to withdraw from representing Ms Thuy in Court Proceedings despite the fact that there was a reasonable expectation of a conflict between his duty to serve the best interests of Ms Thuy as his client and his own personal interest, thereby breaching rule 22(2) of the PCR.

Third Charge

Failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to Ms Thuy and Mr Chung in respect of the Suit, thereby breaching rule 5(2)(c) of the PCR.

Fourth Charge

Failing to keep Ms Thuy reasonably informed of the progress of the Suit, thereby breaching rule 5(2)(e) of the PCR.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

11. The DT found that the First Charge had been made out, and that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rule 5(2)(b) of the PCR and amounted to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act).
12. The DT found that the Second Charge was made out, and that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rule 22 of the PCR and amounted to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
13. The DT found that the Third Charge was made out, and that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of the PCR and amounted to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
14. The DT found that the Fourth Charge had been proven, and constituted a breach of Rule 5(2)(e) of the PCR and amounted to improper conduct under section 83(2)(i) of the Act.
15. The DT ordered costs against the Respondent in the sum of S$9,000.

Court of Three Judges

16. The Court ordered that the Respondent be struck off the Roll. The Court further ordered that the Respondent pay costs of S$25,000.

To access the full report, click here.