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 Ooi Oon Tat (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Mr Lim See Meng (the Complainant).
The Complainant was a taxi driver who was involved in an accident with one Mr Chong Chun Siong (Mr Chong). The Complainant suffered some physical injuries. The Complainant, through his then solicitor, commenced DC Suit 2679/2015 (the Suit). The Respondent formally took over conduct of the Suit on 2 May 2016. United Legal Alliance LLC (ULA) represented Mr Chong.
ULA wrote to the Respondent on 15 June 2016, and had requested for certain documents in relation to the Complainant’s case (Discovery Request). About two weeks later, the Complainant went to the Respondent’s office, and provided some documents to enable the Respondent to reply in part to the Discovery Request.
On 30 June 2016, the Complainant sent a reminder to the Respondent via e-mail to respond to the Discovery Request. As the Complainant did not receive any update from the Respondent, he engaged a different solicitor in January 2017, who did a search of the Court’s file and informed the Complainant that the Suit was struck out.
The Complainant’s claim for personal injury, if commenced in a fresh suit at the time it was struck out on 20 January 2017, would have potentially been time-barred. The Complainant eventually commenced civil proceedings against the Respondent for professional negligence, and the Respondent was found liable to pay the Complainant’s costs and disbursements, as well as $72,879.03 in damages.
In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Jimmy Yim Wing Kuen, SC and Mr Andrew Chan Chee Yin as DT member.
Three charges (and its alternatives) were preferred against the Respondent:
First Charge
For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, the Respondent was aware of information that would reasonably affect the Complainant’s interests in the Suit, but failed to reasonably inform the Complainant of such information and/or the progress of the Suit, in breach of Rule 5(2)(b) and/or Rule 5(2)(e) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (Rules).
First Alternative 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 in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, the Respondent was aware of information that would reasonably affect the Complainant’s interests in the Suit, but failed to reasonably inform the Complainant of such information and/or the progress of the Suit.
Second Charge
For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of legal services; provide timely advice and/or use all legal means to advance the Complainant’s interests to the extent that the Respondent may reasonably be expected to do so, in breach of Rule 5(2)(c), Rule 5(2)(h) and/or Rule 5(2)(j) of the Rules.
Second Alternative 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 in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of legal services; provide timely advice and/or use all legal means to advance the Complainant’s interests to the extent that the Respondent may reasonably be expected to do so.
Third Charge
For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, the Respondent had failed to follow the lawful, proper and reasonable instructions that the Complainant was competent to give, which included failing to follow the Complainant’s instructions in his email to the Respondent dated 30 June 2016, in breach of Rule 5(2)(i) of the Rules.
Third Alternative 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 in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, the Respondent failed to follow the lawful, proper and reasonable instructions that the Complainant was competent to give, which included failing to follow the Complainant’s instructions in his e-mail to the Respondent dated 30 June 2016.
Findings and Determination of the DT; Council’s Sanctions
The DT found that all three main charges (and its alternatives) were proven beyond reasonable doubt. There appeared to be no mitigating factors, while aggravating factors were present in this case.
The DT was of the view that the Respondent could have complied with the Discovery Request but simply failed to, eventually causing the Suit to be struck out while leaving the Complainant in the dark.
The DT emphasised that the Respondent’s conduct was egregious, and sounded its strong disapprobation of the same. Further, the DT also expressed its displeasure at the Respondent who failed and/or refused to file his Defence, List of Documents, and his Affidavit of Evidence-In-Chief despite several reminders and extensions given by the DT.
After considering the cases of The Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer [2019] SGDT 4 and The Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar S/O Sethuraju [2012] SGDT 4, the DT was of the view that this present case was more egregious than the 2 precedents above due to the Respondent’s contumelious and repeated failure to reasonably inform Mr Lim of his discovery obligations which ultimately led to the Suit being struck out.
The DT found that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed, with the Respondent to be referred to the Court of 3 Judges (C3J). The DT had also awarded costs amounting to $8,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to the Law Society.
Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and on 1 July 2022, the C3J ordered the Respondent to be suspended from practice for a period of five (5) years commencing 1 July 2022, and to pay the Law Society’s costs of $18,000 (inclusive of disbursements) with the costs orders made by the DT to remain.
To access the full report, click here.
