Disciplinary Tribunal Reports

December 2024

9 min read

19.38k

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 Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from the Complaint made by Ms Ong Lizhen Daisy on behalf of Allied Technologies Limited (Complainant), in relation to the Respondent’s failure to release funds to the Complainant. These funds were held on trust in an escrow account for the Complainant.
The following charges (seven main charges and seven alternative charges) were preferred at the onset of the proceedings:

First Charge and First Alternative Charge

The Respondent failed to follow all lawful, proper, and reasonable instructions of his client, to release to his client the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Respondent’s firm (Firm) in the Firm’s client account, in breach of Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR), and the Respondent is thereby guilty of:

grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act).
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Second Charge and Second Alternative Charge

The Respondent failed to act honestly in his dealings with his client, by making repeated representations that the Firm would be releasing the sum of $33,153,416,56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account, when he was aware that the said release would not take place, in breach of Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of:

fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Third Charge and Third Alternative Charge

The Respondent failed to act honestly in his dealings with his client, by issuing a DBS cheque to his client for the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account, when he was aware that the cheque was unlikely to be cleared, in breach of Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of:

fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Fourth Charge and Fourth Alternative Charge

The Respondent failed to keep his client informed of all information that may affect the interests of his client in the matter of the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account, in breach of Rule 5(2)(b) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of:

grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Fifth Charge and Fifth Alternative Charge

The Respondent authorised payment(s) out of the Firm’s client account held for his client, without the authorisation of his client, in breach of Rule 7(1)(a) read together with Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (SAR). To the extent that the Respondent believed that the payment was made pursuant to client’s instructions, he has also contravened Rule 5(5) of the PCR in failing to ensure that the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the client. The Respondent is thereby guilty of:

fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Sixth Charge and Sixth Alternative Charge

The Respondent failed to ensure the sum of $33,153,416.56 held in the Firm’s client account for his client was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or he failed to be accountable to the client for the said sum, in breach of Rules 16(1) and/or 16(2) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of:

grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Seventh Charge and Seventh Alternative Charge

The Respondent failed to record his dealings with the monies in the Firm’s client account held for his client, by failing to record the transactions in any cash books, ledgers, and journals in respect of the client account, in breach of Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the SAR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of:

grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act.
misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

The Respondent pleaded guilty to all seven alternative charges.

Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

Pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act, the DT found that on the facts, and based on the Respondent’s plea of guilt to all seven alternative charges, that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Act. The DT ordered costs of $6,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by the Respondent to the Society.

Court of Three Judges

The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be struck off the Roll. The Court of Three Judges also ordered the Respondent to pay the Society’s costs (inclusive of disbursements), fixed at the aggregate sum of S$15,000.

To access the full report, click here.

In the Matter of Isaac Riko Chua (1^st Respondent) and Wong Shoou-Huang Jonathan (2^nd Respondent) (Collectively, Respondents), Advocates & Solicitors

These proceedings arose from information referred by the Supreme Court of Singapore touching on the Respondents’ conduct.
The Respondents acted for the Accused (the Accused) in a criminal matter. They acted for the Accused both in proceedings at the State Courts, and subsequently in the Appeal at the High Court.
The Accused had pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 10 charges. As part of their preparation of the Accused’s mitigation plea, the Respondents submitted a report dated 25 November 2020 (Psychiatric Report) by a psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist). In a letter dated 26 March 2021 (26 March Letter), the Respondents requested the Psychiatrist’s opinion on five specific issues which the 1^st Respondent was informed would be of relevance to the sentencing court. The Psychiatrist issued a Clarificatory Report dated 6 April 2021 (the Clarificatory Report), which was relied on in the mitigation plea in the State Courts.
Subsequently, the Accused appealed to the High Court against his sentence, where both the Psychiatric Report and Clarificatory Report were relied on.
In written submissions prepared by the Respondents for the Accused for the Appeal, the 2^nd Respondent’s name appeared first in the order of counsel for the Accused with the 1^st Respondent. However, on 24 September 2021, only the 1^st Respondent appeared as counsel for the Accused before the Honourable the Chief Justice in the Appeal. The 2^nd Respondent appeared with the 1^st Respondent at the further hearing of the Appeal on 1 December 2021.
At the 24 September 2021 hearing, the Court found the Clarificatory Report to be difficult to follow, as the Court was unable to readily locate the questions posed to the Psychiatrist from the Clarificatory Report or the Record of Appeal. When this was raised to the 1^st Respondent at the hearing, he mistakenly thought that the questions posed to the Psychiatrist were not set out in the Clarificatory Report.
When the Court asked the 1^st Respondent if he would be able to disclose the questions posed to the Psychiatrist, he failed to assist the Court by informing where those questions could be found within the Clarificatory Report. Instead, the 1^st Respondent informed the Court that privilege was being asserted over the document with the specific questions that were posed to the Psychiatrist for the creation of the Clarificatory Report (i.e. the 26 March Letter). As a result, the Clarificatory Report was excluded in the Appeal.
The 2^nd Respondent was informed by the 1^st Respondent of what transpired at the hearing of the Appeal. The 2^nd Respondent did not take issue with the 1^st Respondent’s election to exclude the Clarificatory Report as evidence in the Appeal.
The Chief Justice empaneled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Kenneth Tan, SC and Mr Chan Hock Keng as DT member.
One amended charge was preferred against the 1^st Respondent:

Amended Charge Against 1^st Respondent

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act), in that the 1^st Respondent had, whilst acting for the Accused, submitted a clarificatory report dated 6 April 2021 to the High Court in HC/MA 9101/2021/01, and had failed to assist the Court by not being fully familiar with the Clarificatory Report, and thereby failed to assist in the administration of justice or act honourably in the interests of justice as he were duty bound to do to as he:

Was not fully familiar with the contents of the Clarificatory Report;
When queried by the Honourable the Chief Justice, the 1^st Respondent failed to assist the Court by pointing out to where the questions could have been found – which were in the Clarificatory Report itself; and
Instead, elected to assert privilege over the questions posed to the Psychiatrist in the creation of the Clarificatory Report, and then chose not to rely on the Clarificatory Report for the Appeal.

One amended charge was preferred against the 2^nd Respondent:

Amended Charge Against 2^nd Respondent

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act, in that the 2^nd Respondent had, whilst acting for the Accused, submitted a Clarificatory Report to the High Court in HC/MA 9101/2021/01, that the 2^nd Respondent, together with the 1^st Respondent an Advocate and Solicitor, who was the lead counsel before the Honourable the Chief Justice, and as counsel for the Accused, were not fully familiar with the Clarificatory Report and thereby failed to assist in the administration of justice or act honourably in the interests of justice as he were duty bound to do to.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

The DT found that the 1^st Respondent’s negligent decision to assert privilege over the questions posed to the Psychiatrist was comparatively more serious. The Clarificatory Report had been excluded from the evidence in the Appeal as a result of the 1^st Respondent’s mistake. As the Clarificatory Report was submitted as evidence favourable to the Accused, the 1^st Respondent’s decision could have had the effect of damaging the Accused’s case in the Appeal. The DT was of the view that the 1^st Respondent should be sanctioned under section 93(1)(b) of the Act.
The DT found that the 2^nd Respondent should also bear responsibility for the negligent decision to assert privilege over the questions posed to the Psychiatrist. As the 2^nd Respondent’s negligence could have prejudiced the Accused’s rights in the Appeal, the 2^nd Respondent should be sanctioned under section 93(1)(b) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 93(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the DT determined that, while there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act, both Respondents should be reprimanded.
Pursuant to parties’ agreement, the DT ordered that the Respondents be jointly and severally liable for the payment of costs of S$7,000.00 and disbursements to be fixed at S$200.00, to be paid to the Law Society.
Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society accepted and adopted the DT’s findings and recommendations, and reprimanded the Respondents.

To access the full report, click here.

In the Matter of Charan Singh s/o Bantar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by the Complainants, for whom the Respondent had acted in the sale and purchase of a Property (the Property). The Respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of 28 years’ standing. At all material times, the Respondent was the sole proprietor of M/s Charan Singh & Co.
In the sale and purchase of the Property, the Complainants were to be paid $280,000 (the Sum) from the sale proceeds of the Property. The Respondent failed to ensure that the Complainants were paid the Sum before allowing completion of the sale of the Property or to ensure that the Complainants received the Sum upon completion of the sale of the Property.
The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Puay Boon, SC and Mr Chong Yee Leong as DT member.
Three alternative charges were proceeded against the Respondent:

First Alternative Charge

For misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and 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 that the Respondent had failed to inform and/or take instructions from the Complainants on the completion of the sale and purchase of the Property.

Second Alternative Charge

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and 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 Act in that the Respondent provided M/s KL Lim Law Practice with a copy of the signed transfer document and informing M/s KL Lim Law Practice to proceed unconditionally with the completion of the sale and purchase of the property in addition to failing to advise the Complainants to take the necessary steps to ensure that they receive the Sum upon completion of the sale and purchase of the Property.

Third Alternative Charge

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and 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 Act in that the Respondent had failed to follow up with M/s KL Lim Law Practice on the Sum due to the Complainants from the completion of the sale and purchase of the Property.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

The DT found that the Alternative Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts, and submissions of both Counsel as well as the case authorities, the DT agreed and accepted that the Respondent’s acts of misconduct did not constitute cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action to exist under section 83 of the Act, as required under section 93(1)(c) of the same Act.
Pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act, the DT determines that, while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that the Respondent pay the Law Society S$2,500.00 in costs.
Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00.

To access the full report, click here.

The Singapore Law Gazette