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 Clarence Lun Yaodong (“Respondent”), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”) against the Respondent.
2. The following main and alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent:

Charge

Breach of rule 17(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”), in that he had failed to inform, or sufficient inform the Complainant of the reasonably foreseeable payments that the Complainant may have to make to third parties for the cost of transcription and for the certified transcript in the District Court proceedings numbered DC/SUM 887/2022, amounting to misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act

Alternative Charge

Breach of rule 17(3)(b) of the PCR, in that he had failed to inform, or sufficiently inform the Complainant of the reasonably foreseeable payments that the Complainant may have to make to third parties for the cost of transcription and for the certified transcript in the District Court proceedings numbered DC/SUM 887/2022, thereby being guilty of a breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s sanction

3. The DT found the Alternative Charge was made out, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act.
4. The DT recommended that the Respondent should be reprimanded.
5. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and reprimanded the Respondent.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the matter of Leong Keng Kheong (“Respondent”), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a referral of information made against the Respondent under section 85(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “LPA”).
2. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the LPA, for improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, with alternatives referencing section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, were preferred against the Respondent:

1^st Charge

The Respondent had, while representing the defendants in the Suit, discussed and/or communicated without the Court’s permission, the evidence given or to be given by Duan Wei with Duan Wei himself, who was a witness who was called in proceedings before the court, thereby breaching Rule 12(2) and/or 12(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”).

2^nd Amended Charge

The Respondent had acted without the lawful instructions of his client by applying to amend the Defence, thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(i) of the PCR.

3^rd Charge

The Respondent had, while representing the defendants in the Suit, discussed and/or communicated without the Court’s permission, the areas and scope of Duan Wei’s re-examination and/or evidence to be given or elaborated in his re-examination with Duan Wei himself, who was a witness who was called in proceedings before the court, thereby breaching Rule 12(2) and/or 12(1) of the PCR.

4^th Charge

The Respondent had while representing the defendants in the Suit, drafted an expert witness statement of Dr Yang Xinhao containing contentions which he did not consider to be reasonably and properly arguable, resulting in unnecessary costs for both parties and a waste of judicial resources, thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(h)(ii) of the PCR.

5^th Charge

The Respondent had while representing the defendants in the Suit, contravened the requirements of Order 40A, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2014, by drafting, preparing and adducing the expert evidence of an expert witness who was unfamiliar with the tests which were necessary to enable him to make a satisfactory report, thereby breaching Rule 9(1)(f) of the PCR.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

3. The DT found that the main charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the LPA, the DT determined that, while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83(1) of the LPA, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$10,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate as a global penalty for the overall misconduct committed.
5. Pursuant to section 93(2) of the LPA, the DT ordered that the Respondent pay costs of $4,500 (all-in)
6. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the LPA, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of S10,000.00.

To access the full report, click here.