Back
Image Alt

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 Tan Teik Yu Mark (Respondent)
Advocate & Solicitor

These proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev. Ed.) (LPA) whereby the Respondent had pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of five charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (MDA). The Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 21 months with effect from 19 October 2020.

In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Tee Jim SC and Mrs Christine Sekhon as DT member.

Charges

Five (5) Charges were preferred against the Respondent and pleaded guilty to, with the second, third and fourth Charges being proceeded with, and the remaining charges being taken into consideration:

First 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 had, on 17 March 2018, in his possession a Class C Controlled Drug nimetazepam without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 8(a) of the MDA.

Second 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 had, on 17 March 2018, in his possession a Class A Controlled Drug methamphetamine without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 8(a) of the MDA.

Third 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 had, on or before 17 March 2018, consumed a Class A Controlled Drug methamphetamine outside of Singapore, without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 8(b)(ii) read with section 8A(1) of the MDA.

Fourth 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 had, on 18 March 2018, in his possession a Class A Controlled Drug methamphetamine without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 8(a) of the MDA.

Fifth 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 had, on 17 March 2018, in his possession utensils intended for consumption of a Controlled Drug, i.e. one glass tube, two improvised glass apparatus, two glass apparatus, one rubber tube and four coloured straws, without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 9 of the MDA.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

The DT found that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the LPA as:

  1. The Respondent was not a drug addict or trafficker;
  2. He committed the criminal offences due to his major depressive disorder;
  3. The offences did not involve dishonesty or deception and had no connection with his professional duties as an advocate and solicitor. They were not committed in the course of such duties;
  4. The impact of the offences was limited to the Respondent himself and his family;
  5. The Respondent pleaded guilty to the criminal charges as well as the three charges proceeded with by the Law Society and agreed to have two other charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. It showed that he was remorseful and contrite;
  6. The Respondent promptly agreed to the conditions imposed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers in relation to his application for a practising certificate;
  7. He also made diligent efforts to ensure that he did not relapse into drug use and hence the likelihood of re-offending is low.

The DT found that the Respondent had already been punished with imprisonment and pursuant to section 93(1)(b)(ii) of the LPA, determined that a reprimand would serve the ends of justice in this case.

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT, and the Respondent was reprimanded. Disbursements (to be agreed or taxed) were also ordered by the DT to be payable by the Respondent to the Law Society.

To access the full report, click here.


In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent)
Advocate & Solicitor

These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Wong Siew Lan (the Complainant).

The Complainant was an employee and shareholder of a company, which operated a wanton mee stall (the Company). The Company’s cash takings were deposited into the Company’s bank account. The Complainant and the two other shareholders of the Company (Two Shareholders) got into a dispute over cheques issued from the Company’s bank account without the knowledge or consent of the Complainant. The Complainant then stopped depositing the Company’s cash takings into the Company’s bank account.

The Respondent was engaged to represent the Two Shareholders in this dispute. On 28 February 2017, the Complainant’s solicitors proposed a settlement on behalf of the Complainant which included a term that they would pay the cash takings amounting to the sum of $26,896.45 by way of a cashier’s order in favour of the Company (the Cashier’s Order).

The parties agreed to hand the Cashier’s Order over to the Respondent subject to an undertaking that she would not release the Cashier’s Order to her clients, the Two Shareholders, until a comprehensive agreement was reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them (the Undertaking). On 30 March 2017, the Respondent stated by way of letter that she would not release the Cashier’s Order to her clients.

On 24 April 2017, the Two Shareholders commenced legal proceedings against the Complainant, and the Complainant, through her solicitors, asked for the return of the Cashier’s Order given that the Two Shareholders commenced legal proceedings. The Respondent stated that she had held the Cashier’s Order until 18 April 2017 and the Cashier’s Order was then deposited by the Two Shareholders into the Company’s bank account to pay for the Company’s overheads.

The above release of the Cashier’s Order by the Respondent to her clients when there was no comprehensive agreement reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them amounted to a breach of undertaking by the Respondent. The Complainant thus filed a complaint accordingly.

In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Kenneth Michael Tan Wee Kheng SC and Ms Audrey Chiang Ju Hua as DT member.

One main charge and one alternative charge were preferred against the Respondent, with the Respondent pleading guilty to the main charge:

Charge

For grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in that, on 18 April 2017, the Respondent released the Cashier’s Order to her clients despite having given a solicitor’s undertaking not to release the Cashier’s Order until a comprehensive agreement had been reached between the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them.

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, on 18 April 2017, the Respondent released the Cashier’s Order to her clients despite having given a solicitor’s undertaking not to release the Cashier’s Order until a comprehensive agreement had been reached between the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them.

On 7 June 2021, the Respondent pleaded guilty to the main charge of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

The DT accepted that the Respondent did not act dishonestly and did not benefit personally when she breached her solicitor’s undertaking.

Citing the Court of Three Judges in Lim Kiap Kee, the DT drew a distinction between a breach that was an oversight and one that was deliberate, and found that the Respondent deliberately disregarded the trust reposed in her and released the Cashier’s Order to her clients.

The DT emphasised that “it is the foundation of an honourable profession that a member abides by her undertaking” and that “a deliberate breach by a member will seriously undermine the integrity of the profession”.

The DT found that the Respondent was guilty of the main charge, and that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed, with the Respondent to be referred to the Court of Three Judges (C3J). The DT had also awarded costs amounting to $6,000 (inclusive of disbursements), to the Law Society.

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and on 9 May 2022, the C3J ordered the Respondent to be suspended from practice for a period of three (3) months commencing 1 June 2022, and to pay the Law Society for disbursements incurred in the C3J action (to be agreed or taxed) with the costs orders made by the DT to remain.

To access the full report, click here.

The Law Gazette is the official publication of the Law Society of Singapore.