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 Sarindar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Jain Alka @ Alka Salecha (the Complainant). The Complainant and her husband, one Mr Padam Kumar Jawerilal Salecha, were shareholders and directors of Swina International Pte Ltd (Swina) at all material times.
Swina engaged the Respondent to negotiate with Swina’s creditor banks in relation to outstanding loans of around S$16 million. The Complainant and her husband also engaged the Respondent also attend to the bankruptcy proceedings taken out against them on account they being guarantors of the loans taken out by Swina.
The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Roderick E Martin SC and Mdm Tan Gee Tuan as DT member.
One charge and two alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent:
Charges
1st 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 Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) in that the Respondent failed to provide advice to his clients, in relation to the legal proceedings commenced against them, in breach of Rule 5(2)(h) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).
1st 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 LPA in that the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of legal services to his clients by failing to advise his clients in relation to the legal proceedings that had been commenced against them, in breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of the PCR.
2nd 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 LPA in that the Respondent failed to use all legal means to advance his clients’ interests to the extent that he may reasonably be expected to do so, by failing to advise his clients in relation to the legal proceedings that had been commenced against them, in breach of Rule 5(2)(j) of the PCR.
Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions
The DT found that the main charge, i.e. the 1st Charge, was made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
The DT found that the Respondent did not advise his clients on the options available to the client in response to bankruptcy and winding up applications, i.e. the prospect of voluntary arrangements, schemes of arrangements and/or judicial managements. Further, the Respondent failed to advise his clients on the issue of balance sheet solvency.
The DT noted that Swina was balance sheet solvent at the material time, and this fact could have been relied on to either persuade creditor banks to grant more time for repayment, or at the very least, to seek an adjournment from the Court. The Respondent did not do that or advise the clients on the same.
Because of the Respondent’s omissions, his clients did not consider making a revised repayment proposal to Maybank to avoid the bankruptcy and winding up orders.
In addition, the DT found that the Respondent failed to advise his clients on their options moving forward after bankruptcy and winding up orders were made.
The DT concluded that no cause of sufficient gravity existed for a referral to the Court of Three Judges, cognisant of the fact that there was no element of dishonesty on the Respondent’s part, and that he was a candid witness. The DT was of the view that a financial penalty was appropriate to address the Respondent’s misconduct. There was no order as to costs as the Complainant’s counsel had taken on the case on a pro bono basis.
Council accepted the findings of the DT and imposed a financial penalty of S$10,000 on the Respondent.
To access the full report, click here.
