lss_dt_reports: 30

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
30 13d833b0586c12f43f2afef6a556f16932925cb7 In the Matter of Ismail Bin Atan, an Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Ismail Bin Atan, an Advocate and Solicitor Pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act, the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined that cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (the Act). On 18 November 2014 the Respondent was charged for outraging the modesty of his former employee pursuant to section 354(1) of the Penal Code. On 26 June 2015 the charge was compounded as the victim agreed to an offer by the Respondent to compound upon payment of $3000 and a letter of apology. Subsequently the Attorney-General referred information pursuant to section 85(3) of the LPA and the Council commenced disciplinary proceedings. Three charges were preferred against the Respondent. The 1st charge set out the allegations relating to the outrage of modesty which was grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duties within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The 2nd and 3rd charges were premised on the same facts save that the 2nd charge referenced a breach of Rule 53A of Professional Conduct Rules whilst the 3rd charge referenced conduct unbecoming of an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honorable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Findings by the DT In his defence, the Respondent denied that he intended to outrage the modesty of his former employee. He alleged that he had made the offer to compound and provided the letter of apology on the advice of his counsel. The victim gave evidence and the DT found that she had provided a clear and detailed account of what had transpired and that her evidence was corroborated by several factors, including the Respondent’s letter of apology where he apologised for the unwarranted physical contact imposed on her without her consent. The DT determined under section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists against the Respondent under section 83 of the Act. The Council’s Decision Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and accordingly proceeded to apply for leave under section 98 of the Act for the Respondent to show cause as to why he should not suffer the sanctions set out in section 83 of the Act. The Court of Three Judges The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors on 26 July 2017.     2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ In the Matter of Ismail Bin Atan, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ 1049

Links from other tables