lss_dt_reports: 2

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
2 c94496223939eaecba1cac0ab5c95aae23200a72 In the Matter of Carolyn Tan Beng Hui (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Carolyn Tan Beng Hui (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor On or about 2 May 2017, sale proceeds from the sale of a residential property were deposited with the Respondent’s law firm, Tan & Au LLP (TALLP). The property was registered to Seo Puay Guan (SPG), who was one of seven siblings. The other siblings had alleged that SPG held the property on trust for their late mother, and each claimed an interest in the balance sale proceeds. TALLP filed interpleader proceedings in Originating Summons No. 1100 of 2017 (OS 1100) with the seven siblings as respondents. OS 1100 was fixed for hearing for three days from 12-14 September 2018 before Dedar Singh Gill JC (as he then was) (the JC) where SPG was cross-examined on 12 September 2018 and 13 September 2018. The learned JC asked the counsels to attend in his physical chambers to deal with house-keeping matters. The attendance in chambers concluded shortly after noon on 13 September 2018, and at 1.22pm, TALLP filed SUM 4260 of 2018 in OS 1100 (the Recusal Application) for the learned JC to recuse himself from further hearing the proceedings. The Respondent filed an affidavit in support the next day (the Recusal Affidavit) which contained allegations against other legal practitioners without letting them have the opportunity to respond to the said allegations. The Respondent had also made further statements against the learned JC in the Recusal Affidavit which was disrespectful to the Court. The recusal application was heard on 25 September 2018 before the learned JC and was dismissed. An affidavit opposing the application was filed by the late David Kong who was the solicitor for three of the siblings. The Respondent took umbrage at statements made in David Kong’s affidavit and filed a police report accusing him of perjury. The solicitors for the siblings of SPG jointly made a complaint to the Law Society. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Chuan Thye SC and Mr Chong Yee Leong as DT member to investigate the complaint. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent: Under DT 6 of 2019 First Charge For breaching Rule 29 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR) in permitting an affidavit to be filed on behalf of TALLP in HC/OS 1100/2017 which contained allegations against other legal practitioners without allowing them an opportunity to respond to the said allegations. Second Charge (Alternative Second Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) For breaching Rule 13(2) of the PCR in being disrespectful of the Court in the making of certain statements in respect of the learned JC in an affidavit filed in HC/OS 1100/2017. Under DT 6A of 2019 First Charge (Alternative First Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) For breaching Rule 13(2) of the PCR in filing or causing to be filed documents against the Court’s directions and orders, which are discourteous of a Court. Second Charge (Alternative Second Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) For breaching Rule 29 of the PCR in having permitted documents to be filed on behalf of TALLP in HC/OS 1100/2017 containing allegations against other legal practitioners without allowing them an opportunity to respond to the said allegations. Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The DT’s findings are summarised below: The DT cited dicta by Andrew Phang JA in China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd [2005] 2 SLR(R) 509 and Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye Dave [2007] 1 SLR(R) 581 to remind counsels that “… one can disagree and yet not be disagreeable…” and that there should be “… more civility within the legal profession itself …” and “… more camaraderie within the profession …”. Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the DT, and imposed a financial penalty of S$10,000 on the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Respondent sought to review and set aside the decision of the Council to impose a financial penalty of S$10,000 in HC/OS 432/2021 (OS 432). The Judge in OS 432 found that the penalty imposed was appropriate and justifiable. The Respondent appealed against the decision of the Judge in OS 432 (the Appeal). The Appeal was dismissed on 12 September 2022 with costs of $30,000 (all-in) payable to the Law Society.* To access the full report, click here. *The decision of the Court of Appeal can be found in Tan Beng Hui Carolyn v Law Society of Singapore [2023] SGCA 7. https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/dtr-2023-05.pdf 12th November Annex 1 38 39 40 Annex 2 29 30 31 Annex 3 52 53 54 55 56 58 2023-05-01T04:00:01+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2023/ In the Matter of Carolyn Tan Beng Hui (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2023/ 1049

Links from other tables