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 Radakrishnan S/O Kannusammy Somalingam (“Respondent”), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of:
   1. A referral of information under section 85(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”) by the Registrar of the Supreme Court touching on the Respondent’s conduct;
   2. A referral of information under section 85(3)(b) of the Act by the Attorney-General touching on the Respondent’s conduct; and
   3. A complaint made under section 85(1) of the Act against the Respondent.
2. The Respondent had been engaged to represent his client, who had pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a minor under 14 years of age under Section 376A of the Penal Code (Cap 224,2008 Rev Ed). The Respondent filed a mitigation plea for his client (the “Mitigation Plea”) on 11 January 2019.
3. The proceedings related to the nature and content of the statements he had made in submissions to the Court in the Mitigation Plea. The statements were made against the victim of his client (the “Victim”).
4. The following Charge and 2 Alternatives were preferred against the Respondent:

1^st Charge

In the course of acting for his client, presenting the Mitigation Plea, made allegations against the Victim and referred to screenshots of the Victim’s Instagram, which were scandalous or were intended or calculated to vilify, insult or annoy the Victim, thereby breaching Rule 14(7) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (the “PCR”) as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under Section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”)

1^st Alternative Charge

In the course of acting for his client, presenting the Mitigation Plea, made allegations against the Victim and referred to screenshots of the Victim’s Instagram, as well as made statements as reported in a Straits Times Article, as amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty under Section 83(2)(b) of the Act and/or such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession under Section 83(2)(h) of the Act

2^nd Alternative Charge

In the course of acting for his client, presenting the Mitigation Plea, made allegations against the Victim and referred to screenshots of the Victim’s Instagram, as amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty under Section 83(2)(b) of the Act and/or such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession under Section 83(2)(h) of the Act

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

5. The DT found that the 1^st Charge was made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under Section 83 of the LPA. The DT found that the 1^st and 2^nd Alternative Charges were not made out.
6. The DT recommended that the Respondent be ordered to pay a penalty of no more than S$12,000. The DT ordered, pursuant to Section 93(2) of the LPA, that the Respondent pay costs of S$3,000 each to the Law Society and Attorney-General.
7. Pursuant to Section 94(3)(a) of the LPA, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and imposed a penalty of $5,000 on the Respondent.

To access the full report, click here.