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 K V Sudeep Kumar (“1^st Respondent”) and Dhanwant Singh (“2^nd Respondent”), Advocates & Solicitors

1. These proceedings arose from a complaint made against the Respondents concerning the conduct of K Kumar Law Practice LLP (the “Firm”) in DC/DC 2662/2016 (the “Suit”). The Respondents were partners of the Firm.
2. The Respondents each faced a charge for allowing and/or permitting one Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju (“Mr Kumar”), an unauthorised person under Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”), to represent himself as and/or practice as an Advocate and Solicitor. The charge further states that the Respondents did so by failing to inform or otherwise make clear to the complainant that Mr Kumar was not an advocate and solicitor, and/or allowed Mr Kumar: (i) to have de facto conduct of the Suit, (ii) to meet, interview, and take instructions from the complainant in relation to the Suit, (iii) to render legal advice to the complainant in relation to the Suit, (iv) to prepare and/or draft cause papers and/or other legal documents in relation to the Suit, (v) to control the collection of funds from the complainant, purportedly in respect of costs orders against him in the Suit; and/or (vi) condoned the aforementioned practice.
3. The Respondents were thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Findings and Determination of the DT

4. The Respondents pleaded guilty to the charges before the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”). The DT found that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under Section 83 of the LPA for the referral of the matter to the Court of Three Judges.

Findings and Determination of the Court of 3 Judges

5. The matter was heard by the Court of 3 Judges (the “C3J”) on 12 November 2025.
6. The C3J found that due cause had been established and the Respondents’ conduct involved an undeniable element of dishonesty by allowing an unfit person to carry on the practice of law, going beyond a mere failure to supervise an unauthorised person in the discharge of his duties at the Firm.
7. The C3J ordered that the 1^st Respondent be suspended for a period of 5 years commencing from the date of his discharge from bankruptcy, and the 2^nd Respondent be struck off the roll with immediate effect.
8. Further, the C3J ordered that the Respondents pay, in equal shares, to the Law Society its costs in the amount of $8,000.00 and disbursements of $15,041.10, and the costs of the proceedings before the DT in the amount of $3,500.00.

The C3J’s grounds of decision may be viewed [here – https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_9].

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the matter of John Lim Kwang Meng (“1^st Respondent”) and Sia Dewei, Alvin (“2^nd Respondent”), Advocates & Solicitors

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondents in relation to two different sets of High Court proceedings, HC/S 437/2017 (the “Suit 437”) and HC/S 1230/2018 (“Suit 1240”).
2. In Suit 437, the 1^st Complainant was the defendant and a litigant-in-person. The Respondents acted for the plaintiff and filed an application in HC/SUM 1603/2019 for a Mareva injunction (the “Mareva Injunction Application”) which was heard by the Honourable Justice Lee Seiu Kin (“Justice Lee”).
3. In Suit 1240, the Respondents acted for the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th Defendants, while the 1^st Complainant was the 5^th Defendant. The 2^nd Complainant was the Plaintiff. The Respondents filed applications in HC/SUM 5127/2019, HC/SUM 5128/2019 and HC/SUM 5129/2019 (the “Dismissal Applications”) on behalf of the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th Defendants to dismiss Suit 1240, and alternatively for the 2^nd Complainant to provide security for costs of $10,000 to each of these defendants. The Dismissal Applications were heard by Assistant Registrar David Lee (“AR David Lee”).
4. The following main charges, referencing Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”) for improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the 1^st Respondent:

1^st Charge

For taking advantage of the 1^st Complainant and acting in a deceitful manner towards the 1^st Complainant, by preventing him from entering the chamber for the hearing of the Mareva Injunction Application, on the false pretext that he needed to address the Court on another matter, thereby breaching Rule 8(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”).

2^nd Charge

For omitting to disclose to Justice Lee the 1^st Complainant’s involvement as a party to the proceedings in the Mareva Injunction Application, or refer Justice Lee to the 1^st Complainant’s affidavit which had been filed in the proceedings, thereby breaching Rule 9(3)(b)(i) of the PCR.

3^rd Charge

For being untruthful and inaccurate in his communications with the 1^st Complainant and the 2^nd Complainant’s solicitors, by sending letters asserting that the 2^nd Complainant had been directed to pay costs ordered by AR David Lee in respect of the Dismissal Applications to his clients (the “Letters”), when there had been no such cost ordered, thereby breaching Rule 9(1) of the PCR.

4^th Charge

For failing to exercise proper supervision over the 2^nd Respondent, who was a staff working under him, which resulted in the Letters to be sent out in both their names, thereby breaching Rule 9(1) of the PCR.

5. The following main charges, referencing Section 83(2)(b) of the LPA for improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the 2^nd Respondent:

1^st Charge

For omitting to disclose to Justice Lee the 1^st Complainant’s involvement as a party to the proceedings in the Mareva Injunction Application, or refer Justice Lee to the 1^st Complainant’s affidavit which had been filed in the proceedings, thereby breaching Rule 9(3)(b)(i) of the PCR.

2^nd Charge

For being untruthful and inaccurate in his communications with the 1^st Complainant and the 2^nd Complainant’s solicitors, by sending the Letters, when there had been no such cost ordered, thereby breaching Rule 9(1) of the PCR.

6. Alternative charges to the main charges, referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court, were also preferred against the Respondents.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

7. Pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act, the DT determined that, while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act: (i) the 1^st Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$5,000.00 in respect of the 2^nd Charge, which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and (ii) the 2^nd Respondent should be reprimanded in respect of the amended alternative 2^nd Charge, to which he had pleaded guilty. The DT made no orders as to costs.
8. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the LPA, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings, and ordered the 1^st Respondent to pay a penalty of S$5,000.00 and that the 2^nd Respondent be reprimanded.

To access the full report, click here.