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 Dhanwant Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) against the Respondent.
2. The following charges (with alternative charges referencing section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) were preferred against the Respondent:

Third Charge

That you, Dhanwant Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you failed to exercise proper supervision over the staff working under you in Messrs S K Kumar Law Practice LLP (the Firm), namely, one Ram S Naidu (Mr Ram), from on or around 11 April 2017 to 23 February 2022, thereby allowing Mr Ram to act without authority of the client or contrary to instructions from the client, by requesting extensions of time for payment of balance due in relation to a purchase of 2 Venture Drive, #10-17 Vision Exchange, Singapore 608526 (the Property) via Mr Ram’s issuance of:

1. a letter on the letterhead of the Firm and signed by Mr Ram in the name of the Firm dated 5 December 2017 to solicitors acting for the seller/developer of the Property, Messrs Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP (Dentons);
2. a letter on the letterhead of the Firm and signed by Mr Ram in the name of the Firm dated 26 December 2017 to Dentons; and/or
3. a letter on the letterhead of the Firm and signed by Mr Ram in the name of the Firm dated 6 February 2018 to Dentons;

and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA.

Fourth Charge

That you, Dhanwant Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you failed to exercise proper supervision over the staff working under you in Messrs S K Kumar Law Practice LLP (the Firm), namely, one Ram S Naidu (Mr Ram), from on or around 11 April 2017 to 23 February 2022, thereby allowing Mr Ram to issue letters and emails to HIS BOUNTY ASSOCIATES PTE LTD (UEN: 200923954N) (the Client), a conveyancing client of the Firm, which inaccurately set out the status of completion of 2 Venture Drive, #10-17 Vision Exchange, Singapore 608526 (the Property), specifically that:

1. by way of a letter dated 3 December 2021, issued on the letterhead of the Firm and signed by Mr Ram in the name of the Firm, to Messrs Khor Law LLC (Khor Law), the Client was informed that the title deed of the Property had just been retrieved and that the Firm would proceed to perfect the transfer and arrange for lodgement the following week;
2. by way of an email dated 16 December 2021 at 9:16 am, sent by Mr Ram but signed off in the Respondent’s name, to Khor Law, the Client was informed that the Firm was finalising the perfection of the transfer in respect of the Property and would be submitting it to the Singapore Land Authority by the following week;
3. however, by way of emails dated 30 December 2021 at 11:22 am and 11:37 am to Khor Law, the Client was informed that the Firm was in the process of completing searches to locate the title deed of the Property, and would be completing the searches by the following week;

and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA.

Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

4. The DT found that the Third and Fourth Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the LPA for the referral to the Court of Three Judges.
5. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the LPA, that the Respondent pay costs of $7,000 and disbursements of $500 to the Law Society.

Findings and Determination of the Court of Three Judges

6. The matter was heard by the Court of Three Judges on 13 May 2025.
7. The Court found that due cause was made out on the Third and Fourth Charges, and that such failure by the Respondent to exercise supervision over Mr Ram enabled Mr Ram to misappropriate conveyancing money paid by a client to the law firm, and to cover up his wrongdoing.
8. The Court ordered that the Respondent be suspended for a period of five years commencing from the date of his discharge from bankruptcy, and that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs and disbursements of $10,000.

The Court’s grounds of decision may be viewed here.

To access the full report, click here.