Disciplinary Tribunal Reports

October 2021

11 min read

7.38k

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 Huang Lui (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor

These proceedings arose from a complaint made by Mdm Lim Lay Choo, Mdm Lim Lay Pheng and Mr Lim Teck Guan (the Complainants) against Mdm Huang Lui. The Complainants were amongst the nine beneficiaries to the Estate of Mdm Tan Bee Eng, who was the Complainants’ mother. Mdm Lim Lay Choo and one Mr Lim Teck Seng, another beneficiary to the Estate, were named as Joint Executors of the Estate pursuant to the will. The Complaint alleged that the Respondent had grossly overcharged them for the probate matter, had failed to provide full particulars or details of the work done despite repeated requests and queries, had refused to respond to repeated requests to tax her bill and had delayed providing the breakdown of her bill for nine months. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Cavinder Bull SC and Mr Ian Lim as DT member.

Charges

One main charge and one alternative charge were preferred against the Respondent:

1^st Charge

For committing an act amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty as an advocate and solicitor in breach of Rule 17(3)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, contrary to section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act for failing to inform or sufficiently inform her clients of the basis on which her professional services will be charged.

Alternative 1^st Charge

For committing an act of misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act in which she had failed to inform, or sufficiently inform, her clients of the basis on which her professional services will be charged, in breach of Rule 17(3)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015.

Amendment of Charge and Findings and Determination of the DT

The 1^st Charge, which the Respondent subsequently pleaded guilty to, was amended by the Law Society to reflect that the Respondent had committed an act amounting to “improper conduct” rather than “grossly improper conduct” to reflect the appropriate level of the Respondent’s culpability.

The DT found the Respondent guilty of the amended 1^st Charge with the Alternative 1^st Charge against the Respondent dismissed.

With the precedent cases of The Law Society of Singapore v Anand K Thiagarajan [2009] SGDT 2 and The Law Society of Singapore v Chung Kok Soon [2002] SGDSC 2 in mind, the Tribunal found that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83.

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and the Respondent was reprimanded and ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs fixed at S$5,000 plus reasonable disbursements.

To access the full report click here.

In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor

These proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the LPA and as such Council is required to refer the matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) for formal investigation. The complaint pertained to the Respondent’s conduct in relation to Originating Summons (Adoption) No. 355 of 2014 and his subsequent correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empaneled a DT presided by Ms Molly Lim SC and Mr Teo Weng Kie as DT member.

Charges

Three main and alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent:

1^st Charge

For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) (Cap 161, S 706/2015) regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to assist in the administration of justice were breached due to the Respondent providing copies of the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings without having obtained the court’s permission to do so, thus breaching Rule 671 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR) (No 27 of 2014, S 813/2014).

Alternative 1^st Charge

2^nd Charge

For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in falsely claiming by way of a letter dated 28 December 2017, addressed to the AGC, that he had expressly sought the leave of the Court during the hearing to release the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to the client’s friends and relatives when in fact no such request was made by the Court.

Alternative 2^nd Charge

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in falsely claiming by way of a letter dated 28 December 2017, addressed to the AGC, that he had expressly sought the leave of the court during the hearing to release the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to the client’s friends and relatives when in fact no such request was made by the Court.

3^rd Charge

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in omitting to mention in his letter dated 28 December 2017 addressed to the AGC that he had, on or around 26 December 2017, disseminated the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings, despite a direct query from the AGC on the same in its letter dated 28 December 2017, thus conveying an inaccurate impression that he and/or his firm were not involved in and/or responsible for the dissemination of the brief grounds to the members of the media.

Alternative 3^rd Charge

For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in omitting to mention in his letter dated 28 December 2017 addressed to the AGC that he had, on or around 26 December 2017, disseminated the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings, despite a direct query from the AGC on the same in its letter dated 28 December 2017, thus conveying an inaccurate impression that he and/or his firm were not involved in and/or responsible for the dissemination of the brief grounds to the members of the media.

Findings and Determination of the DT; Council’s Sanctions

The DT found the Respondent guilty of the Alternative 1^st Charge with the other charges against the Respondent dismissed.

No cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the LPA as the DT determined that there was an absence of any dishonesty and deceit. However, should there be dishonesty and deceit under different circumstances, the DT may be minded to find otherwise that, there may be sufficient gravity for disciplinary action.

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and the Respondent was subsequently imposed with a penalty of $10,000. Costs (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 Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor

These proceedings arose from a complaint made by one Mr Tan Ng Kuang (Mr Tan) and one Ms Lim Siew Soo (Ms Lim) (jointly, the Complainants), who were insolvency practitioners with nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (nTan), against the Respondent as well as one Mr Jai Swarup Pathak (Mr Pathak) of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Gibson Dunn).

The complaint stemmed from the circumstances leading to and following the Complainants’ appointment as judicial managers (JMs) of Punj Lloyd Pte Ltd (PLPL) and Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (SEC) (jointly, the Companies).

The complaint was that the Complainants had agreed with PLL, through the Respondent and Mr Pathak (who were acting for PLL), to be appointed the JMs for the Companies on condition that PLL would make a cash deposit of $2 million, either with nTan or Gibson Dunn, in escrow. The Complainants’ judicial management fees, billed at an hourly rate, would be paid out of the said cash deposit and that Gibson Dunn had received and held $500,000 as part of the said deposit for the JMs’ fees.

The Complainants had (through a letter issued by the Complainants’ then-solicitors, Tan Kok Quan Partnership) requested for payment of the said $500,000 to the Complainants’ account. Contrary to the agreement, in response to the Complainants’ said request, the Respondent had informed them that Gibson Dunn were not holding any fee deposit for the Complainants. Consequently, the sum of $500,000 was not paid out to the Complainants.

In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a DT presided by Ms Molly Lim SC and Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin as DT member.

Charges

Two main and four alternative charges (collectively, the Six Charges) were preferred against the Respondent:

1^st Charge (Charge 1)

For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for Punj Lloyd Limited (PLL), knowing that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing Punj Lloyd Pte Ltd and Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (the Companies) whilst under judicial management, and having received two tranches of S$250,000 on or between 17 August 2016 and 8 September 2016 as part of that deposit, assisted or permitted PLL, in a manner the Respondent considered dishonest or ought to have considered dishonest, to wit, in not paying each of the tranches to the Judicial Managers when the Judicial Managers made a written demand for them through solicitors on 2 September 2016 for S$250,000, and again on 22 September 2016 for S$500,000 after the Respondent indicated that he had ceased to act for PLL in its dealings with the Judicial Managers and is therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR).

Alternative 1^st Charge (Charge 1A)

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, knowing that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, and having received two tranches of S$250,000 on or between 17 August 2016 and 8 September 2016 as part of that deposit, assisted or permitted PLL, in a manner the Respondent considered dishonest or ought to have considered dishonest, to wit, in not paying each of the tranches to the Judicial Managers when the Judicial Managers made a written demand for them through solicitors on 2 September 2016 for S$250,000, and again on 22 September 2016 for S$500,000 after the Respondent indicated that he had ceased to act for PLL in its dealings with the Judicial Managers.

2^nd Charge (Charge 2A)

For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, caused the Judicial Managers to continue to believe that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management by sending emails that confirmed that such deposit had been made in part, and is therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR.

Alternative 2^nd Charge (Charge 2B)

For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, did not while acting for PLL clarify PLL’s position that it had not agreed to so fund the judicial management and is therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR.

Further Alternative 2^nd Charge (Charge 2AA)

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, caused the Judicial Managers to continue to believe that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management by sending emails that confirmed that such deposit had been made in part.

Further Alternative 2^nd Charge (Charge 2BB)

For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, did not while acting for PLL clarify PLL’s position that it had not agreed to so fund the judicial management.

Findings and Determination of the DT; Council’s Sanctions

The DT first found that they had jurisdiction to deal with the Six Charges.

The DT then subsequently found that Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR was not applicable to the facts of the complaint as it was intended to apply to Court proceedings. As such, Charges 1, 2A and 2B which involved a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR could not be maintained against the Respondent and were dismissed.

The DT also found that although there was a Deposit Agreement made between PLL and the Complainants, Charge 1A was not made out against the Respondent as the totality of the evidence before the DT did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent had assisted or permitted PLL, in a manner which the Respondent considered dishonest or ought to have considered dishonest, in not paying the $500,000 for the Judicial Managers’ fees.

As for Charges 2AA and 2BB, these were alternative charges to Charge 1A proffered against the Respondent on the basis that there was no Deposit Agreement and, in light of the DT’s finding that there was a Deposit Agreement, it was unnecessary for the DT to deal with Charges 2AA and 2BB.

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

Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT with the Respondent and the Complainants bearing their respective costs.

To access the full report, click here.

The Singapore Law Gazette