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
The Council of the Law Society referred information relating to the conduct of the Respondent pursuant to section 85(2) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA).
Between October 2019 and January 2020, the Respondent offered training contracts to two individuals, one Mr Lim Teng Jie (Mr Lim) and one Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil (Ms Sunil).
The Respondent was not, at any material time, qualified to act as a supervising solicitor pursuant to rule 18 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011.
The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Siraj Omar SC and Mr Tan Jee Ming as DT member to investigate the complaint.
Five charges (and its alternatives for the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Charges) were preferred against the Respondent:
First Charge (Alternative First Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA)
For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA), in that the Respondent had failed to ensure Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, who were practice trainees serving their respective practice training periods under separate practice training contracts with Foxwood LLC, were supervised by a supervising solicitor who had in force a practising certificate for a total of not less than five out of seven years immediately preceding the date of the supervision of each of the said practice trainees, in breach of Rule 36(2)(a)(ii) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).
Second Charge (Alternative Second Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA)
For contravening Rule 18(1)(b) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, by being the supervising solicitor during the practice training periods of Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, who were practice trainees serving their respective practice training periods under separate practice training contracts with Foxwood LLC, while having in force a practising certificate of a period of less than five out of the seven years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the Respondent’s supervision of Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, which warrants disciplinary action within the meaning of section 83(2)(j) of the LPA.
Amended 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, by behaving in a manner inconsistent with the public interest by being the supervising solicitor during the practice training periods of Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, who were practice trainees under separate practice training contracts with Foxwood LLC, when not having in force a practising certificate of a period of not less than five out of the seven years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the Respondent’s supervision of Mr Lim and Ms Sunil as required under Rule 18(1)(b) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011.
Fourth Charge (Alternative Fourth Charge for a Breach of Rule 8(3)(b) PCR)
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, by taking unfair advantage of Ms Sunil by demanding that she pay Foxwood LLC the sum of $2,000 when this sum was not recoverable by due process of law, in breach of Rule 8(3)(a) of the PCR.
Fifth Charge (Alternative Fifth Charge for Acting in a Manner Contrary to Position as a Member of an Honourable Profession in Breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR)
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, by acting in a manner which was deceitful by representing to Mr Lim, a practice trainee of Foxwood LLC, that by May 2020 the Respondent would meet the requirements under Rule 18(1) of the Legal Profession (Admissions) Rules 2011 to be Mr Lim’s supervising solicitor during his practice training period when the Respondent knew this to be false, in breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR.
Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions
The DT found that the First Charge, Second Charge, Alternative First Charge, Alternative Second Charge and Third Charge, were made out.
The Fourth Charge, Alternative Fourth Charge, Fifth Charge, and Alternative Fifth Charge were not made out.
The DT cited the principle in Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2005] 4 SLR(R) 320 (Selena Chiong) whereby all solicitors ought to be familiar with the rules made under the LPA, and will be deemed to be aware of their existence and applicability. It followed that each advocate and solicitor bore personal responsibility to ensure that the applicable rules of practice are strictly adhered to in all areas of his/her practice.
The DT found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for the matter to be referred to the Court of Three Judges (C3J):
- Under section 83(2)(b) of the LPA in respect of the First Charge;
- Under section 83(2)(j) of the LPA in respect of the Second Charge;
- Under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in respect of the Alternative First Charge, Alternative Second Charge and the Third Charge.
The Respondent was further ordered by the DT to pay the Law Society’s costs.
Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the DT and accordingly referred the matter to the C3J.
The C3J found that due cause was proved under section 83(2)(j) of the LPA on the Second Charge. The C3J “agreed with the DT that the respondent “simply did not care whether there were any rules and, if so, what they were.”
The Respondent was suspended for 18 months with effect from 7 November 2022, and it was ordered for costs of $10,000 to be paid by the Respondent.*
To access the full report, click here.
*The decision of the C3J can be found in Law Society of Singapore v Clarence Lun Yaodong [2022] SGHC 269.
