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 Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Victor Lim in relation to events that occurred on 26 March 2014 that resulted in Victor Lim signing a Declaration of Trust (DOT). The DOT was ultimately set aside by the High Court after Victor Lim brought an action for the same. Following the findings or remarks of the High Court in BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 (BOK v BOL), Victor Lim lodged a complaint against the Respondent.
In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Roderick E Martin SC and Mr Chan Hock Keng as DT member.
Charges
Three main charges were preferred against the Respondent:
First Charge
For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA), and a breach of Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), in which the Respondent had aided the misrepresentation of his daughter, Calista Marella Peter, to her then husband, Victor Lim, in that the Deed of Trust would only take effect upon his death, until which time he was free to deal with his assets, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court.
Second Charge
For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, and a breach of Rule 53A of the PCR, in which the Respondent had exerted undue influence upon Victor Lim or aided Calista Marella Peter to exert undue influence upon Victor Lim, thereby inducing Victor Lim into signing the Deed of Trust, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court.
Third Charge
For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, and a breach of Rule 53A of the PCR, in which the Respondent had failed, refused and/or neglected to advise Victor Lim to seek independent legal advice in circumstances where he was or ought to have been aware of his daughter’s misrepresentation as to the legal effect of the Deed of Trust and of the vulnerability and impairment of Victor Lim’s mental state at the material time when he was suffering from acute grief due to his mother’s death, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court.
Findings and Determination of the DT
The DT noted that for the three charges against the Respondent to be made out, it was incumbent on the Law Society to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent had followed Calista Marella Peter back into her bedroom.
This resulted in a face-off between what Victor Lim said had occurred, i.e. that the Respondent entered the bedroom, and what the Respondent said had occurred, i.e. that the Respondent did not enter the bedroom. This face-off called into operation the test propounded in paragraphs 87 to 89 of Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter [2020] 1 SLR 486 (PP v GCK) in which the Court of Appeal required “unusually convincing” circumstances in order to rely on a sole eyewitness’ testimony in convicting an accused.
The DT found that Victor Lim’s account of the events, including the Respondent having entered the bedroom, did not satisfy the “unusually convincing” standard due to a number of internal and external inconsistencies in Victor Lim’s testimony as well as his demeanour during cross-examination.
Determination of the DT
The DT determined that all three charges were not made out and, pursuant to section 93(1)(a) of the LPA, that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the Respondent existed under section 83 of the LPA.
Council subsequently adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and decided pursuant to section 94(2) of the Act that no further action be taken against the Respondent.
To access the full report, click here.
