lss_dt_reports: 23

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
23 367e0a29f2224b218367c8abb472e5e432371c26 In the Matter of L. F. Violet Netto, Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of L. F. Violet Netto, 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. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint by the Attorney-General, in relation to two Personal Costs Orders (PCOs) that had been made against the Respondent. The Respondent had failed to comply with the PCOs within reasonable time and without reasonable explanation for such delay, and she had also failed to accord the respective State Counsel of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) the courtesy of responding to their letters (specifically, a final reminder from the AGC) in connection with the PCOs. In addition, the Respondent had chosen to ignore the final chaser from the AGC to comply with the PCOs. As a result of the said circumstances, a total of three charges were formulated against the Respondent. The First Charge and the Second Charge were for the Respondent’s failure to comply with cost orders (in HC/OS 130/2015 and HC/OS 226/2015, respectively) made against her within a reasonable time and without any reasonable explanation which amounts to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. The Third Charge was for the Respondent’s breach of Rule 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules by neglecting, refusing and/or failing to respond to AGC’s letter of 23 February 2018 in relation to her payment obligations under the costs orders, which amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. An Alternative Third Charge referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act was also formulated. Findings by the DT Prior to the proceedings by the DT proper, the Respondent made payment for the outstanding amount. However, the AGC stated that it wished to proceed with the matter. The DT noted that the final payment for the costs were made some three years after the orders were made and it was the Respondent who had sought the AGC’s indulgence to settle the costs orders along with the proposed quantum and timing for the instalments. Thereafter, she repeatedly failed to honour the payment schedules as agreed between her and the AGC, and as a result the AGC had to chase for the overdue payments and repeatedly remind her of her obligations. Further, it was only after AGC had referred the matter to the Society that the Respondent decided to make the final payment. To this end, the Respondent was not able to provide any satisfactory explanation as to why she could not have responded to AGC’s letter dated 23 February 2018 or why she could not have paid that amount. Her dilatory conduct in failing to comply with the costs orders within a reasonable time and without out any reasonable explanation goes against the “interest of the judicial administration of justice”. Accordingly, the DT found the Respondent guilty of the First Charge and Second Charge. For the Third Charge, the DT noted that between 13 April 2015 and 22 February 2018, the Respondent had failed to respond to approximately 14 letters from the AGC in relation to the costs orders, including the letter dated 23 February 2018 which was the final chaser from the AGC and she was not able to provide any satisfactory explanation as to why she could not have done so. As such, the DT found her guilty of the Third Charge. Given the said circumstances, the DT had 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. The DT made no order as to costs. 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 reprimanded the Respondent.     2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ In the Matter of L. F. Violet Netto, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ 1049

Links from other tables