lss_dt_reports: 21

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
21 2c70261b7a8002d3fe7829ad8a3f7cc7ee345564 In the Matter of Wong Sin Yee, Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Wong Sin Yee, Advocate and 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 $6,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint by the Singapore Police Force that alleged that the Respondent had, on two separate occasions during his conversations with two different Investigation Officers (IOs), used offensive, insulting and threatening language against the two officers who were discharging their duties. The Respondent had in his conversation with an IO threatened to lodge a complaint to his superiors as well as ‘Ministers’, challenged the IO to prefer criminal charges against his client and said that he will “drag the case against the client for one whole year” and the client would be made to “sell her body and earn money to pay [the Respondent’s] lawyer fees”. In a separate conversation with another IO, he shouted at the IO that he “will be applying for hearing for the case”, accused the IO of being “cocky” and shouted “sure my balls, you are an idiot”. Two charges were preferred against the Respondent. The 1st Charge referenced his misconduct in the first conversation with one of the IOs, which was a breach Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) 2010 amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty under section 83(2)(b) of the Act. The 2nd Charge referenced his misconduct in the second conversation with the other IO, which was a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of PCR 2015 amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty under section 83(2)(b) of the Act. Additionally, two alternative charges were 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. Findings of the DT The Respondent pleaded guilty to the two alternative charges referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act. The DT agreed with the Society’s submissions that a penalty sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed would suffice. With reference to Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2012] SGDT 12, the DT found that a penalty of $3,000 for each of the two charges (totalling $6,000) would be sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct. For the foregoing reasons, the DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act, a penalty of $6,000 (S$3,000 per charge) should be imposed on the Respondent. Further, the DT determined the costs of the proceedings to be fixed at $3,000 plus reasonable disbursements. The Council’s Decision Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Society agreed with the determination of the DT and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $6,000.     2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ In the Matter of Wong Sin Yee, Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ 1049

Links from other tables