Back
Image Alt

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 Constance Margreat Paglar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Lim Beng Heng Bernard (Complainant). The Complainant had engaged the Respondent to make a claim for personal injuries that he sustained in a road traffic accident on 28 September 2017.

The Respondent had issued a letter of demand to India International Insurance Pte Ltd (III Pte Ltd), the insurers of the motor vehicle that was involved in the road traffic accident. Proposals were exchanged between the Respondent and III Pte Ltd. However, it was alleged that the Respondent had failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed of the progress of his matter by failing to inform the Complainant when she negotiated a higher global settlement sum with III Pte Ltd and by failing to explain the breakdown of the settlement sum.

In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Andre Yeap SC and Mr G Radakrishnan as DT member.

Charges

One main charge and two alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent:

Charge

For the improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in which the Respondent had breached Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) in that she renegotiated and accepted a higher global settlement sum for the Complainant without informing or obtaining his authorization for the same after he had instructed her to accept the offer of a lower sum and she purported to keep the difference as her fee without the Complainant’s authorisation or instruction.

Alternative 1st Charge

For misconduct unbefitting of 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 in that she renegotiated and accepted a higher global settlement sum for the Complainant without informing or obtaining his authorization for the same after he had instructed her to accept the offer of a lower sum and she purported to keep the difference as her fee without the Complainant’s authorisation or instruction.

Further Alternative 1st Charge

For the improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA in which the Respondent had breached Rule 17 of the PCR in that she failed to act in the best interests of the Complainant by renegotiating and accepting a higher global settlement sum for the Complainant without informing or obtaining his authorisation of the same after he had instructed her to accept the offer for a lower sum and she purported to keep the difference as her fees without the Complainant‘s authorisation or instruction.

Findings and Determination of the DT

The 1st Charge, which the Respondent subsequently pleaded guilty to, was amended by the Law Society based on representations from the Respondent with the main charge under Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR being amended to a charge under Rule 5(2)(e).

The DT was concerned that the amended 1st Charge appeared not to give adequate weight to the possible severity of the actions of the Respondent which was clearly detrimental to her client and the amended 1st Charge appeared to trivialise the complaint.

The DT had also noted that the Respondent seemed to have a recent antecedent in The Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat Paglar [2019] SGDT 11 (DT 8/2019) and invited submissions from parties as to whether the DT was at liberty to consider the antecedent for purposes of arriving at the appropriate sanction in view of the guilty plea to the amended 1st charge.

Having regard to only the facts of this case, the DT determined that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the LPA. Further, the DT observed that it would be useful if a Court of Three Judges could clarify for the benefit of future DTs whether a tribunal is empowered and be at liberty to consider and give weight to a respondent’s antecedent misconduct in arriving at a decision and/or determining the appropriate sanction for the misconduct that is before the DT.

Having determined under section 93(1)(c) of the LPA that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action, the DT was permitted under section 93(2) of the LPA to make a costs order and ordered for the Respondent to pay costs to the Law Society amounting to $4,000.

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT that there exists cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action and that the Respondent to be referred to the Court of Three Judges* and for the Respondent to pay costs for the proceedings, amounting to $4,000 (inclusive of disbursements), to the Law Society.

Further Findings and Determination of the DT

After having decided that a respondent’s antecedents may be considered for the purposes of sentencing, the case was subsequently remitted to the DT by the Court of Three Judges where the DT directed parties to make further submissions in relation to the appropriate order to be made by the Tribunal.

Council subsequently adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and the Respondent was reprimanded for a breach of Rule 5(2)(e) of the PCR.

To access the full reports, click here and here.

*The decision of the Court of Three Judges can be found in Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat Paglar [2021] SGHC 27.

The Law Gazette is the official publication of the Law Society of Singapore.