lss_dt_reports: 20

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
20 225a87fe268f473c8edcf9402353ecdcb882b94f In the Matter of Sham Chee Keat, Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Sham Chee Keat, Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) had determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The complaint concerned a statement in the Affidavit of the Respondent’s client, in which the said client, who was the Plaintiff of the suit, deposed and attested that the Respondent did not inform the Court (during the Pre-Trial Conference or PTC on 2 March 2016) that they would make the application for bifurcation of the Suit by 16 March 2016 and that the Defendant involved in the suit had “misquoted and twisted the words of my solicitor…”. However, the Notes of Evidence of the Assistant Registrar (AR) in relation to the PTC indicated that there was an agreement by both parties that the Suit was suitable for bifurcation. Woo Bih Li, J noted the inconsistencies between the Affidavit and the AR’s Notes of Evidence and referred the matter to the Society pursuant to section 85(3) of the Act. The DT subsequently granted leave to the Society’s Counsel to amend its charges as the Statement of Case submitted to the DT alluded to carelessness or lack of diligence on the Respondent’s part rather than dishonesty. Accordingly, the amended charges preferred against the Respondent were read as follows: 1st Charge “You, Sham Chee Keat, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev Ed), to wit, by breaching Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 in that, sometime between 2 March 2016 and 11 June 2016, you had failed to be honest in all your dealings with your client, Ms Tan Chin Lay Evelyn, by providing information to her, to the effect that- (a) you did not inform the court at the pre-trial conference on 2 March 2016 that you or your client, Ms Tan Chin Lay Evelyn (plaintiff in Suit No. 661 of 2015) would make the application for bifurcation by 16 March 2016; and (b) the defendant in Suit No. 661 of 2015, Cheng Soo Many Stacy, had in paragraph 13 of her affidavit dated 23 May 2016 misquoted and twisted your words in stating that you informed the court that you or your client, Ms Tan Chin Lay Evelyn, would make the application for bifurcation by 16 March 2016 which statement is false, which information you knew was false.” An alternative charge to the 1st Charge was also tendered against the Respondent citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession. 2nd Charge “You, Sham Chee Keat, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev Ed), to wit, by breaching Rule 9(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 in that, sometime on or about 7 July 2016, you included or caused to be included in an affidavit deposed to by your client, Ms Tan Chin Lay Evelyn, the following statements of fact contained in paragraph 25 therein which you knew were inaccurate and false, ‘My solicitor did not inform this court that they would make an application for bifurcation by 16 March 2016. The Defendant has misquoted and twisted the words of my solicitor in paragraph 13 of the affidavit dated 23rd May 2016 in stating that my solicitor informed the court that they would make the application for bifurcation by 16 March 2016 which statement is false.’” An alternative charge to the 2nd Charge was also tendered against the Respondent citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession. This was followed by a further alternative 2nd Charge referencing a breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR 2015) for the Respondent’s failure to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to the client by including or causing to be included the Affidavit deposed by his client the statement which formed the basis of the 2nd Charge. Findings by the DT The DT, inter alia, made the following findings: The Respondent misunderstood the outcome of the PTC and his attendance notes were inaccurately recorded; Notwithstanding the inaccuracy of the Respondent’s Attendance Notes, he was not dishonest in providing information to the client about the PTC on 2 March 2016 when it seemed unlikely that he would have any motive to knowingly cause the Affidavit to contain an untruthful statement. It was more likely that he misunderstood the outcome of the PTC and thereafter relayed the incorrect position to the client; The Respondent was not dishonest in causing or allowing the Statement to appear in the Affidavit even if he was badgered or pressured by the client to include the inaccurate statement; and The Respondent breached his duty of reasonable diligence and competence in allowing the statement, which was false and/or inaccurate, to be in the Affidavit, and therefore he was only guilty of the alternative 2nd Charge referencing a breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of PCR 2015. Further, he ought to have referred to the AR’s Notes of Evidence as soon as the issue of the PTC arose in the course of drafting the Affidavit, and set the record straight before the client incorporated the untruthful statement back into the draft of her affidavit. Thus, the Respondent had acted carelessly with insufficient professional diligence and competence. The DT found that the Respondent acted unprofessionally without diligence and competence. However, in the absence of dishonesty, the DT’s view was that such carelessness was not egregious enough to warrant the sternest sanction available under the Act. Given the said circumstances, the DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. Further, the DT ordered that costs of the proceedings to be fixed at $7,000 of the proceedings plus reasonable disbursements in favour of Law Society. The Council’s Decision Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Society agreed with the findings of the DT, considered the Respondent’s oral and written mitigation and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $3,000.     2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ In the Matter of Sham Chee Keat, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ 1049

Links from other tables