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 Tan Siew Gek Suzanne (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a referral of information by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore (the Council) touching on the Respondent’s conduct, to the Chairperson of the Inquiry Panel, pursuant to section 85(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act).
- The Respondent was at all material times practising at the law practice Southern Law Corporation (the Firm).
- The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act, amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:
First Charge
The Respondent had signed and issued 45 bearer cheques, withdrawing a total of $609,849.00 from the Firm’s client account without the permission of the General Division of the High Court, thereby amounting to a breach of Rule 8(4) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (SAR).
Second Charge
The Respondent had issued 31 cheques from the Firm’s client account signed by a single signatory only, each for an amount of $5,000 or less, but withdrawing a total of more than $5,000 on the same date to 6 of the Firm’s clients, thereby breaching Rule 8(5) of the SAR.
Third Charge
The Respondent had failed to keep contemporaneous signed written agreements in the English language with her clients supporting the settlement of their respective legal claims and the deductions of their incurred legal fees, and had also failed to furnish Bills of Costs for her clients, thereby breaching section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) and Rule 11(1)(a)(i) of the SAR.
Fourth Charge
The Respondent had failed to keep proper books and accounts by having copies of two signed cheques with the same cheque number issued to two different payees, thereby amounting to a breach of section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(2) of the PCR and Rule 11(1)(a)(i) of the SAR.
Fifth Charge
The Respondent had failed to properly account for specific “loan” amounts that the Firm’s employee Mr Yogeswaran Krishnan (YK) provided to three of the Firm’s clients in the Firm’s client account, but instead relied on handwritten notes recorded on client and correspondence documents inaccurately stating that the sums were paid out to the clients, amounting to a breach of section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(2) of the PCR and Rule 11(1)(a)(i) of the SAR.
Sixth Charge
The Respondent had failed to protect her clients’ interest in respect of clients’ money held by her and being accountable for any money which her clients had entrusted with her when YK made five of the Firm’s clients sign documents acknowledging receipt of settlement sums paid out to them prior to the date the corresponding settlement sum cheques were issued to them, thereby breaching section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(1)-(2) of the PCR.
Seventh Charge
The Respondent had failed to exercise proper supervision over YK who made five of her clients sign documents acknowledging receipt of settlement sums paid out to them prior to the date the settlement sum cheques were issued to them, thereby amounting to a breach of Rule 32 of the PCR.
Eighth Charge
The Respondent had failed to keep properly written up accounts showing dealings with clients’ money received, held and paid by the Respondent through the Firm’s client account and had failed to be accountable to her clients for any money that had been entrusted with her due to inconsistencies in the Firm’s financial accounts recorded by the Firm’s employee Ms Geeta d/o Vellaithe (GV), thus amounting to a breach of section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(2) of the PCR and Rule 11(1)(a)(i) of the SAR.
Ninth Charge
The Respondent had failed to exercise proper supervision over GV in the recording of financial entries in the Firm’s accounts, resulting in inconsistencies in the Firm’s financial accounts, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR.
Tenth Charge
The Respondent had failed to keep properly written up accounts in the English language showing her dealings with clients’ money received, held, and paid by her through the Firm’s client account, and had also failed to be accountable to her clients for any money which had been entrusted with her when she failed to issue a supporting client account voucher for two cheques, hence amounting to a breach of section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(2) of the PCR and Rule 11(1)(a)(i) of the SAR.
Eleventh Charge
The Respondent had failed to protect her clients’ interest in respect of clients’ money held by her and being accountable for any money which her clients had entrusted with her when she failed to fully disburse settlement sum balances to 5 clients, thereby breaching section 72 of the Act read with Rule 16(1)-(2) of the PCR.
Twelveth Charge
The Respondent had failed to exercise proper supervision over GV in the issuance of payments to her clients, resulting in the Firm’s failure to fully disburse settlement sum balances to five clients, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR.
Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal; Council’s Decision
- The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined, pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act in respect of all 12 charges, and that the matter was to be referred to the Court of Three Judges.
- The DT further ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that costs fixed at $5,000 were to be paid by the Respondent to the Law Society. The Council accordingly referred the matter to the Court of Three Judges.
Findings of the Court of Three Judges
- The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be suspended for a period of two and a half years, commencing 2 August 2024. The Court further ordered that the Respondent pay costs of $6,000 (all-in).
To access the full report, click here.
In the Matter of Hewage Ushan Saminda Premaratne (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint made by the Complainant about the Respondent’s representation of the Complainant’s sister in a family dispute between the Complainant and the Complainant’s sister.
- The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty as an advocate and solicitor:
First Charge
Despite having given a solicitor’s undertaking dated 13 July 2022 to the Complainant to release the sum of $65,000 held by the Respondent’s firm, being the costs ordered in his favour in FC/OSM 202/2021 (OSM 202), upon the final disposal of OSM 202 or any appeal brought by the Complainant’s sister against the orders made in OSM 202, breached the said solicitor’s undertaking by not releasing the said sum of $65,000 to the Complainant or to the Complainant’s solicitors between 13 January 2023 and 9 March 2023.
Second Charge
Between 13 January 2023 and 9 March 2023, assisting the Complainant’s sister to breach an Order of Court – FC/ORD 3548 issued by the Family Court on 7 July 2021 that required the Complainant’s sister to pay the costs amounting to $65,000 held by her solicitors as ordered in OSM 202 after the dismissal of her appeal against orders made in OSM 202 on 30 December 2022.
- Alternative charges to the two main charges, referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court, were also preferred against the Respondent.
Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal; Council’s Decision
- The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) was of the view that the Charges were not made out and acquitted the Respondent. In particular, the DT stated at paragraphs 93-94 of its Report:
93 In light of the above, we are not convinced that any potential breach would cross the threshold of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor let alone grossly improper conduct. In this regard, we refer to the case of John Fox (at 73):
“The court, however, will always have in mind that a solicitor is not necessarily to be regarded as having misconducted himself by failing to honour an undertaking when, for example, the issue of whether the words amounted to an undertaking, or the further issue of whether there has been a breach, turns on the answer to a fine or subtle point of construction. Likewise where there was a real scope for genuine misunderstanding on what was said or meant by a solicitor on a particular occasion. In that sense this supervisory jurisdiction will only be exercised in a clear case“. [emphasis added]
94 On that basis, even if we are wrong in the interpretation of when OSM 202 was finally disposed of and there was indeed a breach of the undertaking given by the Respondent, the inadvertent breach would not amount to conduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83 of the LPA.
- The Council of the Law Society accepted the findings of the DT.
To access the full report, click here.
