lss_dt_reports: 22

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
22 62b222786466df55d18b0940fedad4aa775dce3f In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar, Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar, 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 $2,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint in respect of some of the Respondent’s clients’ claims made by JKS Motorworks (Accident Claims) Pte Ltd, an agent engaged by various owners of vehicles which were involved in traffic accidents to claim for losses and/or damages arising therefrom. The Respondent’s firm was engaged by these clients to claim for losses and/or damages arising from traffic accidents. The gist of the Complaint against the Respondent was that she had failed to act with reasonable diligence in the provision of her services to the clients, as she had failed to keep her clients (through the Complainant) informed of the progress of their respective cases. Before the DT hearings, the DT was notified that the Law Society would proceed only on four charges (Charges No. 1, 3, 7 and 9) out of the initial 19 charges based on an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASOF) and the Respondent would be taking a certain course of action in relation to the four charges. The four charges which referred to breaches of Rule 5(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR 2015) for not keeping her clients informed of the progress of their respective claims, which amounted to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act, were as follows: Charge No. Dates between which no updates were provided to the client 1 24/12/15 – No updates as of formulation of ASOF dated 02/10/19 3 15/01/16 – 20/06/18 7 22/07/16 – 11/07/18 9 05/04/16 – 22/05/18 Findings by the DT The Respondent pleaded guilty to the aforementioned four charges citing section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act at the onset of the proceedings. The DT accepted the Respondent’s submissions that her misconduct did not involve any dishonesty or constitute grossly improper conduct and that instead it arose out of lapses in her management of the clients’ files. The DT found that no prejudice was caused to the clients. Whilst the Respondent’s misconduct undoubtedly and unfortunately fell short of the standards befitting an advocate and solicitor, there was no deliberate omission or intention to cause harm to the clients on her part. Given the said circumstances, the DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Act against the Respondent but she be ordered to pay a penalty of $4,000. The DT further determined that costs for the proceedings, which the Respondent agreed to bear, be fixed at $6,000. 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 mitigation plea and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $2,000.     2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ 1049

Links from other tables