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 Seow Theng Beng Samuel (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

These proceedings arose from information referred by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore (Law Society) in relation to the conduct of the Respondent, which stemmed from the following circumstances:

  1. The initial lodging of a complaint against the Respondent by a former employee of the Respondent’s firm, Samuel Seow Law Corporation, who subsequently withdrew the complaint; and
  2. The publication of media reports on the Respondent’s abusive behaviour towards his employees;

Upon the application of Council, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), presided by Mr Siraj Omar SC, and Mr Pradeep Pillai, as DT member.

Charges

Eight (8) principal charges were preferred against the Respondent with alternative charges pursuant to section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) (collectively, the Charges).

After the hearing had commenced, the Respondent pleaded guilty to all of the Charges and Alternative Charges preferred against him.

1st Charge (Charge 1)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by throwing files and boxes on the floor in her direction, screaming at her, and verbally abusing her.

2nd Charge (Charge 2)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by throwing a metal stapler on the floor in her direction on 26 March 2018.

3rd Charge (Charge 3)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by throwing a metal stapler on the floor in her direction on 28 March 2018.

4th Charge (Charge 4)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by shouting and advancing towards her in an aggressive manner, such that she stumbled and fell.

5th Charge (Charge 5)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by throwing his wallet in her direction, and threatening to kill her with a knife.

6th Charge (Charge 6)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent used criminal force against his employee.

7th Charge (Charge 7)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in which the Respondent verbally abused his employee and voluntarily caused hurt to her.

8th Charge (Charge 8)

For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in which the Respondent verbally abused and used criminal force against his employee.

Findings and Determination of the DT

The DT found that the facts relating to the Respondent’s conduct were not disputed and painted a clear picture of physical and verbal abuse. The DT also found that the Respondent’s conduct towards his employees was an abuse of his position of authority over them.

The DT found that the seriousness of the Respondent’s misconduct, and the fact that it contravened both sections 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the LPA, sufficiently constituted cause of sufficient gravity within the meaning of section 93(1)(c) of the LPA in the absence of valid mitigating factors.

The DT considered the mitigating factors proffered by the Respondent and found that:

  1. They did not assist in mitigating the seriousness of the Respondent’s conduct;
  2. The Respondent’s contemporaneous conduct did not reflect genuine remorse; and
  3. The arguments raised by the Respondent in mitigation were not sufficient in persuading the DT that the severity of the misconduct did not amount to “cause of sufficient gravity”.

The DT therefore found that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed and ordered that the Respondent pay the Law Society’s costs in relation to the proceedings.

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and made the application pursuant to section 98 of the LPA for the Respondent to show cause.

Pursuant to an application by the Law Society for the Respondent to be sanctioned under section 83(1) of the LPA, the C3J* found that there was due cause for the Respondent to be sanctioned, and ordered that the Respondent be struck off the rolls on 18 May 2022.

To access the full report, click here.

*The decision of the C3J can be found in Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112.

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