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 Kasturibai d/o Manickam (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from the Complainant and her brother (the Brother), whom the Respondent acted for in the sale of a property. In the course of this, the Respondent prepared six documents for the Complainant to be signed by the Complainant. The Respondent signed as witness to the Complainant’s signature to the documents when she did not in fact witness the Complainant signing them. Five of these six documents were then sent to the firm representing the purchasers of the property (the Purchasers’ solicitors), intending that they be relied upon for the purchase.
2. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty as an advocated and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

Revised First Charge

For intentionally signing as witness to the signature of the Complainant on five documents in the course of acting for the Complainant and the Brother, when in fact the said documents were not signed in her presence by the said Complainant, further providing the signed documents bearing her signature as witness, to the Purchasers’ solicitors, when she knew that she had not witnessed the Complainant signing the documents, intending for the same to be relied upon.

Revised Second Charge

For intentionally signing as witness to the signature of the in the course of acting for the Complainant and the Brother, when in fact the said documents were not signed in her presence by the said Complainant.

3. The Respondent had agreed to not contest the Revised Alternative 1^st Charge and the Revised Alternative 2^nd Charge have been made out. However, the Revised 1^st Charge and Revised 2^nd Charge (collectively Principal Charges) would still be proceeded with.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

4. The DT was of the view that the Principal Charges were made out and that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act. The DT also ordered costs of $10,000.

Court of Three Judges

The Court ordered that the Respondent be suspended for a period of 12 months, commencing 1 April 2024. The Court further ordered that the Respondent pay costs of $10,000 (all in).

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint made by the Court of Appeal in CA/CCA 22/2019 and CA/CCA 24/2019.
2. The following charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

For breach of Rule 29 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR), in that whilst he was acting as advocate and solicitor in CA/CCA 24/2019 (CCA 24), he had made or permitted allegations to be made against another legal practitioner (the Lawyer) in his written submissions for CCA 24 filed on 19 March 2021 (his Submissions) without giving the Lawyer the opportunity to respond to the said allegations:

1. by attempting to contact the Lawyer only on 17 March 2021 to inform him of the allegations he intended to, and did, make in his Submissions; or
2. by writing to the Lawyer only on 19 March 2021, which is the date he had filed his Submissions, to inform the Lawyer of the allegations he made against the Lawyer in his Submissions.

Second Charge

For breach of Rule 29 of the PCR, in that in the course of CCA 24, in that whilst he was acting as advocate and solicitor in CCA 24, he had made or permitted allegations to be made against two legal practitioners in his Submissions without giving the two said legal practitioners the opportunity to respond to the said allegations by failing to inform them of the allegations he had made against them in his Submissions.

3. The Respondent pleaded guilty to the two Charges.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

4. The DT found that the Charges were made out, but there was no cause for sufficient gravity, and that the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty that is sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed, which in the DT’s view would be an amount of $10,000.
5. Council accepted the findings of the DT and imposed a financial penalty of $7,500 on the Respondent.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Christopher James De Souza (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) had determined pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act in relation to the five primary charges preferred against the Respondent.

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from information touching upon the conduct of the Respondent, referred by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeals No. 226 and 228 of 2019 (the Appeals) to the Law Society of Singapore (the Law Society).
2. The Respondent had been the solicitor having conduct for the Plaintiffs (the Plaintiffs) in a High Court suit (the Suit). In the course of proceedings, the Appeals had been filed and heard before the Court of Appeal.
3. In deciding the Appeals, the Court of Appeal made certain remarks about the Respondent’s conduct during the Suit, giving rise to the information referred to the Law Society.
4. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

The Respondent had knowingly misled or attempted to mislead the Court:

1. By failing to inform the Court of the Plaintiffs’ prior breaches of undertakings not to disclose certain documents;
2. By concealing the Plaintiffs’ intended ex parte leave application to remedy said breaches; and
3. By requesting for an extension of time to comply with court timelines to review the documents for the extraneous purpose of making further reports to the authorities.

in breach of rule 9(2)(a)(i) and 9(a)(iii) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).

Second Charge

The Respondent failed to disclose to the Court the Plaintiffs’ breaches and intended ex parte leave application at the Pre-Trial Conference (the PTC), thereby breaching rule 9(3)(b)(i) of the PCR.

Third Charge

The Respondent failed to disclose the Plaintiffs’ breaches and intended ex parte leave application to his opposing counsel, thereby breaching rule 9(3)(b)(i) of the PCR.

Fourth Charge

The Respondent, being a party to and assisting the Plaintiffs in suppressing evidence by way of the preparation and filing of an affidavit, which did not exhibit certain reports and supporting documents which would have revealed the Plaintiffs’ breaches of undertakings, breaching rule 10(3)(a) of the PCR.

Fifth Charge

The Respondent had breached his paramount duty to the Court by allowing his duty to the Plaintiffs to take precedence over his duty to the Court by failing to inform the Court at the PTC of the Plaintiffs’ breaches and intended ex parte leave.

Findings of the DT and the Council’s Decision

5. The DT determined that the Fifth Charge could not constitute a distinct offence, as the factual averments were the same as the Second Charge, and directed that the Statement of Case be amended such that the Fifth Charge and Alternative Fifth Charge would be the Second and Third Alternative Charges to the Second Charge respectively.
6. The DT found that the First, Second, and Third Charges and their Alternatives were not made out, whilst the Fourth Charge was made out.
7. The Council adopted the DT’s findings.

Court of Three Judges

8. The Court of Three Judges determined that the Fourth Charge was not made out, and ordered that the Law Society refund the Respondent the sum of $32,394 (being the costs paid by the Respondent to the Law Society at the conclusion of the DT proceedings), and for parties to bear their own costs in respect of the proceedings before the Court of Three Judges.

To access the full report, click here.