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 Ravi s/o Madasamy (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a reference made by the Attorney-General (AG) touching upon the conduct of the Respondent (the Complaint). The Complaint was in respect of criminal proceedings (the Proceedings) where the Respondent was at all material times acting for the accused.
- Shortly after the criminal proceedings had concluded and the Court had issued its judgment, the Respondent, in an interview with the Online Citizen Asia (TOC Asia), made several false and misleading accusations against the Public Prosecutor and/or the AG which had discredited the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). A video recording of the interview was published online.
- In response to the interview, the Deputy Attorney-General (the DAG) wrote to the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent was aware that his allegations were false and thereby requesting for an apology and retraction of what was said during the interview. The Respondent maintained that there was sufficient basis, “both objective and subjective”, for the statements to be made and had refused to provide an apology.
- Thereafter, the Respondent commenced HC/S 1068/2020 (Suit 1068) against the AG, the DAG and the prosecutors who had carriage of the Proceedings, alleging that the AG et al had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office and were in breach of their statutory duty under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR). These events were publicised by the Respondent via Facebook posts.
- The following charges were preferred against the Respondent at the onset of the proceedings:
First Charge
The Respondent made false and/or misleading allegations which were intended to convey to listeners of the interview and/or readers of TOC Asia that the Public Prosecutor and/or the AG had acted in bad faith, maliciously and/or improperly, so as to discredit the AGC and/or its legal officers in the eyes of the public, and thereby committed an act amounting to misconduct under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act).
Second Charge
The Respondent made baseless accusations of misconduct and/or a threat to commence legal proceedings against fellow legal practitioners on his Facebook page, and is thereby guilty of improper conduct within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act read together with Rule 7(2) of PCR.
Third Charge
The Respondent made a statement on his Facebook page which contained a threat to commence legal proceedings against the Law Society and/or a baseless insinuation that the Law Society misuses its statutory powers, and is thereby guilty of improper conduct within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act read together with Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR.
Fourth Charge
The Respondent sent a letter to the AGC threatening to commence legal proceedings against the AG, the DAG, and members of the prosecution who had carriage of the Proceedings, and is thereby guilty of improper conduct within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act read together with Rule 7(2) of the PCR.
- Additionally, three alternative charges were tendered against the Respondent citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession.
Findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)
- The DT found that the First Charge was not made out. The DT found that the Second, Third, and Fourth Charges were made out but no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action arose. The DT also ordered the Respondent to pay the Law Society costs in the amount of S$3,000 (inclusive of disbursements) pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act.
The Council’s Decision
- The Law Society applied for a review under section 97(1) of the Act of the DT’s findings in relation to the First Charge, contending that the Respondent’s misconduct amounted to due cause and warranted the imposition of more serious sanctions under section 83(1) of the Act. The Court dismissed the Law Society’s application.
Court of Three Judges
- The Law Society then applied to the Court of Three Judges, contending that the Second, Third, and Fourth Charges gave rise to due cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act. The Court of Three Judges agreed with the Law Society’s contention, and ordered that the Respondent be suspended for five years commencing from 21 March 2023. The Court of Three Judges also ordered the Respondent to bear the Law Society’s costs.
To access the full report, click here.
In the Matter of Ravi s/o Madasamy (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- The present disciplinary proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to the Law Society touching on the Respondent’s conduct. The AGC requested that the information be referred for investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT).
- The following charges, referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession, were preferred against the Respondent:
First Charge
Publishing and posting on his Facebook page a statement about the President which he was aware, or in any event ought reasonably to have been aware, is false and baseless, and in so doing, made a baseless and unwarranted attack against the integrity of the President of Singapore
Second Charge
Publishing and posting on his Facebook page a statement about the appointments of the Mr Goh Chok Tong as the former Prime Minister and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, which he was aware, or in any event ought reasonably to have been aware, is false and baseless, and in so doing made a racially-charged statement
Findings of the DT
- The DT found that the First and Second Charges had been made out. The DT ordered costs against the Respondent.
Court of Three Judges
- The Court ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll. The Court further ordered that the Respondent pay costs of $10,000.
To access the full report, click here.
In the Matter of Ravi s/o Madasamy (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- The present disciplinary proceedings arose from information referred by the Supreme Court on behalf of the Honourable Justice Audrey Lim (the Judge) touching on the conduct of the Respondent during and shortly after the hearing of HC/S 699/2021 (the Suit).
- The following charges were preferred against the Respondent (the Charges):
First Charge
Breaching rules 13(2) and/or 13(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (Cap 161) (PCR) by being disrespectful of and discourteous to the Judge, amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act).
Second Charge
Breaching rules 13(2) and/or 13(3) of the PCR in that he had sought to impugn the propriety and impartiality of the Judge by making groundless allegations of bias against the Judge in the conduct of the Suit, amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act.
Third Charge
Informing the Judge during the trial of the Suit that his client wanted to apply to be “discharged” from the proceedings, when this was false, amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.
Fourth Charge
Causing an email to be sent on his behalf to the Supreme Court Registry which represented to the Judge that as at the time of the said email, the Respondent had instructions to continue acting for his client in the Suit and to proceed with the trial, when this was false, amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.
Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)
- The DT found that the Charges had been made out and gave rise to cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act. The DT also ordered costs and disbursements against the Respondent in the sum of $5,744.14.
Court of Three Judges
- The Court ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll. The Court further ordered that the Respondent pay costs of $10,000 and disbursements for the record of proceedings of the DT at $391.40.
To access the full report, click here.
In the Matter of Ravi s/o Madasamy (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- The present disciplinary proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney- General touching on the conduct of the Respondent.
- The Respondent faced three (3) separate charges of misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor, as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) in relation to his publication of certain words on Facebook. In the First amended charge, the Respondent was accused of making a baseless and false allegation against Mr. K Shanmugam in his capacity as the Minister for Home Affairs & Minister for Law affecting the reputation and standing of the Ministries under his charge. In the Second charge, the Respondent was accused impugning the credibility, standing and independence of the Judiciary. The Third charge was one accusing the Respondent of undermining public confidence in the fair administration of justice in Singapore.
Findings of the DT
- The DT found that the First Charge was made out and gave rise to cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act. The Second and Third Charges were dismissed. As a consequential order, the DT ordered that the Respondent pay the costs of the Law Society fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements.
To access the full report, click here.
