lss_dt_reports: 26

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
26 2d50a1c39f268fba8ce6be99433e42ba53667623 In the Matter of Kangatharan Kandavellu Formerly an Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Kangatharan Kandavellu Formerly an Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) 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 ordered to pay a penalty of $15,000. The said disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a qualified Accountant’s Report dated 6 July 2015, which was submitted by the Respondent to apply to renew his practicing certificate in July 2015. The aforementioned Accountant’s Report showed that the Respondent’s Firm’s client account was overdrawn and the accountant could not verify with supporting documents (such as bills, disbursement schedules or other authorisation documents) transfers from the Firm’s client account to its office account for payment of legal fees in respect of six cases, as well as a general journal entry. These issues raised by the accountant in the said Account Report revealed several breaches of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (‘SAR’), and the said breaches formed the substance of the five charges preferred against the Respondent. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, on or about 30 June 2014, withdrew a total sum of $36,328.26 from the Clients Account of KANGA & CO which exceeded the sum of $11,078.65 being the total of the money held at the material time in the said Clients Account and in so doing you have thereby breached Rule 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules and are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).” 2nd Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, on or about 31 December 2014, withdrew a total sum of $53,520.70 from the Clients Account of KANGA & CO which exceeded the sum of $28,270.99 being the total of the of the money held at the material time in the said Clients Account and in so doing you have thereby breached Rule 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules and are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).” 3rd Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, failed to keep proper accounting records for the accounting period of 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014, namely, records of payment of $10,000.00, $11,200.00, $6,000.00, $8,000.00, $3,500.00 and $1,400.00 into the Clients Account of KANGA & CO and in so doing you have thereby breached Rule 11(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules and are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).” 4th Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, failed to keep a record of all bills of costs (distinguishing between profit costs and disbursements) and of all written intimations under Rule 7(1)(a)(iv) and 9(2)(c)(i) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules delivered or made by your clients for the accounting period of 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014, namely, your bills of costs for $11,200.00 which sum was withdrawn on or around 21 February 2014 and in so doing you have thereby breached Rule 11(3) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules and are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).” 5th Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, failed to conduct monthly reconciliation of the balance of your clients’ cash books with your clients’ bank statements and to keep a statement showing the reconciliation for the months of June 2014 and December 2014, and you have thereby breached Rule 11(4) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules and are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).” Additionally, five 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 and Determination of the DT The Respondent pleaded guilty to the five alternative charges at the onset of the proceedings. The DT agreed with the Society’s Counsel that the breaches of Rules 7 and Rule 11 of the SAR in the present case could be seen as less serious than a failure to deposit client’s money into a client account, in contravention of Rule 3 of the SAR. As the funds in question had properly been deposited into a client account initially, the accountant was able to highlight issues with the accounts that led to the breaches being discovered and rectified. Furthermore, the Respondent had neither been fraudulent nor dishonest and the breaches did not lead to a permanent loss to any client. In Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng John [2012] 3 SLR 150, the DT noted that where dishonesty or deceit on the solicitor’s part was not made out, the starting point should be a monetary penalty. Whilst the sum of $15,000 imposed in Tay Choon Leng John was related to a more serious breach of Rule 3 of the SAR, the client account in the present matter was overdrawn to a greater extent. Furthermore, the Respondent’s failure to keep proper accounting records, records of bills and to conduct monthly reconciliation also affected a larger number of transactions rather than just two as in Tay Choon Leng John. For the foregoing reasons, 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, a penalty of $15,000 should be imposed on the Respondent. Further, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, the DT ordered the Respondent to pay the Society costs of $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 findings of the DT and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $2,500.     2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/ In the Matter of Kangatharan Kandavellu Formerly an Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/ 1049

Links from other tables