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 Teo Kim Soon Danny (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent.
2. The following amended charges (the Charges) were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

Failing to exercise proper supervision over an unauthorised person within the meaning of section 32(2) of the Act (the Unauthorised Person) by allowing the Unauthorised Person to attend to the Complainant without the Respondent’s presence, to take instructions on a debt collection matter and thereby enabled the Unauthorised Person to cause the Complainant to execute documents to engage a debt collector, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR) and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act).

Second Charge

Failing to take reasonable steps to implement adequate systems, policies and controls in the Respondent’s firm for ensuring that Respondent’s firm complied with the applicable written law relating to client’s money, thereby breaching Rule 35(4) of the PCR and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act.

Third Charge

Omitting to adequately address or respond to a request by the Complainant for a GST tax invoice, thereby being guilty of such 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 Act.

Fourth Charge

Failing to exercise proper supervision over the Unauthorised Person, to wit:

1. Allowing/permitting/suffering the Unauthorised Person to sign the name of the Respondent’s firm on a letter of demand issued on the letterhead of the Respondent’s firm and send the said letter of demand to the Complainant’s debtor without the Respondent’s knowledge;
2. Permitting/suffering the Unauthorised Person and/or a company in which one the Unauthorised Person was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, to receive a commission on monetary instalments that were paid by the Complainant’s debtor, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act.

Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), Council’s Sanctions

3. The Respondent admitted to the Charges.
4. The DT found that the Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act.
5. The DT recommended that the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$12,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that the Respondent pay the Law Society $3,500.00 in costs.
6. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $12,000.00.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Sandhu Viviene Kaur (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent.
2. The following amended Charge (the amended Charge) was preferred against the Respondent:

Failing to exercise proper supervision over the staff working under her in that she had instructed the said staff to submit an application online using her CorpPass for a grant without supervising the said staff in the completion and/or submission of the application, thereby breaching rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR), which amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal profession Act 1966 (the Act).

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

3. The Respondent admitted to the amended Charge.
4. The DT found that the Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act.
5. The DT recommended that the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. The DT made no order as costs.
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 $4,000.00.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matters of Seah Zhen Wei Paul (1^st Respondent) and Rethnam Chandra Mohan (2^nd Respondent) (Collectively, the Respondents), Advocates & Solicitors

1. The disciplinary proceedings against the Respondents arose out of a reference by the Registrar of the Supreme Court on 19 March 2021, pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) on behalf of the members of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2019 (CA 146) comprising the Honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, the Honourable Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong, the Honourable Justice Judith Prakash, the Honourable Justice Steven Chong and the Honourable Justice Quentin Loh.
2. The following charges were preferred against the 1^st Respondent:

First Charge and First and Second Alternatives

The 1^st Respondent when acting on behalf of his clients, allowed CA 146 to proceed and/or facilitated the continued prosecution of the said appeal, even after he had negotiated and concluded a settlement of the underlying dispute which resulted in the appeal being academic, thereby causing a wastage of the time and resources of a five-coram Court of Appeal,

1. thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR) and such conduct amounted to a breach of his duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice vis-à-vis the appeal process before the Court of Appeal, thereby being guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
2. thereby breaching Rule 9(1)(a) and/or 9(1)(e) of the PCR, and such conduct amounted to a breach of his duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice vis-à-vis the appeal process before the Court of Appeal, thereby being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore under section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
3. and such conduct amounts to a breach of his duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice vis-à-vis the appeal process before the Court of Appeal, thereby being guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Second Charge and First and Second Alternatives

The 1^st Respondent, on behalf of his clients, had entered into a settlement agreement on 28 November 2019, wherein it was agreed that his clients would proceed with CA 146 notwithstanding the settlement of the dispute and that the fact of the settlement would not be disclosed to the Court of Appeal unless strictly necessary and only upon specific queries from the Court of Appeal, which said conduct amounted to a breach of his duty of candour as he misled the Court of Appeal by way of a deliberate suppression of the disclosure of relevant information to the Court of Appeal,

1. thereby being guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore under section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
2. thereby being guilty of a breach of Rule 9(2)(a)(i) of the PCR which amounts to improper conduct or practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore under section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
3. thereby being guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

3. The following charges were preferred against the 2^nd Respondent:

First Charge and First Alternative

The 2^nd Respondent, when conducting proceedings before the Court of Appeal in CA 146 on behalf of a client, did knowingly mislead the Court, by omitting to inform the Court of Appeal that his client had entered into a settlement agreement, until expressly questioned by the Court of Appeal,

1. thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) of the PCR and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore under section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
2. thereby being guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate & Solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Second Charge and Second Alternative

The 2^nd Respondent, had allowed the appeal in CA 146 to proceed and/or facilitated the continuance of CA 146, even after his client had entered into a settlement agreement, resulting in the appeal being academic, thereby causing a waste of the time and resources of a five-coram Court of Appeal, which conduct amounts to a breach of your duty to assist in the administration of justice in the conduct of CA 146,

1. thereby breaching Rule 9(1)(a) of the PCR and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore under section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
2. thereby being guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate & Solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

4. The DT found that the 1^st Respondent was guilty of the First and Second Charges and their alternatives.
5. The DT found that the 2^nd Respondent was guilty of the First Alternative Charge and the Second Charge.
6. The DT ordered that the Respondents each pay the sum of $15,000.00 as costs to the Law Society.

Court of Three Judges

7. The Court of Three Judges disagreed with the DT’s findings in relation to the 2^nd Respondent and found that the First Charge had been made out against the 2^nd Respondent.
8. The Court ordered that the 1^st Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of three years commencing from 17 August 2024, and that the costs fixed at the sum of $10,000.00 to be paid by the 1^st Respondent to the Law Society, which sum reflected his concession of liability at the start of the hearing.
9. The Court ordered that the 2^nd Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of three years commencing from 1 June 2024, and that the costs fixed at the sum of $16,000.00 to be paid by the 2^nd Respondent to the Law Society.

To access the full report, click here.