lss_dt_reports_version: 12

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
12 12 1 1049 In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Wong Siew Lan (the Complainant). The Complainant was an employee and shareholder of a company, which operated a wanton mee stall (the Company). The Company’s cash takings were deposited into the Company’s bank account. The Complainant and the two other shareholders of the Company (Two Shareholders) got into a dispute over cheques issued from the Company’s bank account without the knowledge or consent of the Complainant. The Complainant then stopped depositing the Company’s cash takings into the Company’s bank account. The Respondent was engaged to represent the Two Shareholders in this dispute. On 28 February 2017, the Complainant’s solicitors proposed a settlement on behalf of the Complainant which included a term that they would pay the cash takings amounting to the sum of $26,896.45 by way of a cashier’s order in favour of the Company (the Cashier’s Order). The parties agreed to hand the Cashier’s Order over to the Respondent subject to an undertaking that she would not release the Cashier’s Order to her clients, the Two Shareholders, until a comprehensive agreement was reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them (the Undertaking). On 30 March 2017, the Respondent stated by way of letter that she would not release the Cashier’s Order to her clients. On 24 April 2017, the Two Shareholders commenced legal proceedings against the Complainant, and the Complainant, through her solicitors, asked for the return of the Cashier’s Order given that the Two Shareholders commenced legal proceedings. The Respondent stated that she had held the Cashier’s Order until 18 April 2017 and the Cashier’s Order was then deposited by the Two Shareholders into the Company’s bank account to pay for the Company’s overheads. The above release of the Cashier’s Order by the Respondent to her clients when there was no comprehensive agreement reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them amounted to a breach of undertaking by the Respondent. The Complainant thus filed a complaint accordingly. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Kenneth Michael Tan Wee Kheng SC and Ms Audrey Chiang Ju Hua as DT member. One main charge and one alternative charge were preferred against the Respondent, with the Respondent pleading guilty to the main charge: Charge For grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in that, on 18 April 2017, the Respondent released the Cashier’s Order to her clients despite having given a solicitor’s undertaking not to release the Cashier’s Order until a comprehensive agreement had been reached between the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them. Alternative Charge For 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 LPA in that, on 18 April 2017, the Respondent released the Cashier’s Order to her clients despite having given a solicitor’s undertaking not to release the Cashier’s Order until a comprehensive agreement had been reached between the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them. On 7 June 2021, the Respondent pleaded guilty to the main charge of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA. Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The DT accepted that the Respondent did not act dishonestly and did not benefit personally when she breached her solicitor’s undertaking. Citing the Court of Three Judges in Lim Kiap Kee, the DT drew a distinction between a breach that was an oversight and one that was deliberate, and found that the Respondent deliberately disregarded the trust reposed in her and released the Cashier’s Order to her clients. The DT emphasised that “it is the foundation of an honourable profession that a member abides by her undertaking” and that “a deliberate breach by a member will seriously undermine the integrity of the profession”. The DT found that the Respondent was guilty of the main charge, and that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed, with the Respondent to be referred to the Court of Three Judges (C3J). The DT had also awarded costs amounting to $6,000 (inclusive of disbursements), to the Law Society. Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and on 9 May 2022, the C3J ordered the Respondent to be suspended from practice for a period of three (3) months commencing 1 June 2022, and to pay the Law Society for disbursements incurred in the C3J action (to be agreed or taxed) with the costs orders made by the DT to remain. To access the full report, click here. https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DT_Report_Priyalatha_Naidu_1.pdf 1 October 2021 DT/1/2021 Between THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE Applicant And NAIDU PRIYALATHA ..-Respondent THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL’S DECISION 4. Ms Wong Siew Lan (the Complainant”) lodged a complaint against the Respondent with the Law Society on 29 November 2019, on the ground that the Respondent had breached an undertaking given by her (“the Complaint”). 2. The Respondent is a senior member advocate and solicitor of the Supreme of the profession: she was admitted as an Court of Singapore on 8 October 1980, and at the material time, was a sole proprietor of the firm Messrs P. Naidu. 3 As a consequence of the Complaint, the Law Society brought the following charges against the Respondent: Charge That you, Naidu Priyalatha, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of 2 the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) to wit, that, on 18 April 2017, despite having given your solicitor's undertaking not to release a cashier's order for the sum of $26,896.45 made in favour of Balestier Hui Kee Pte Ltd to your clients (Ng Kar Kui and Chang had been reached between Lien Siang) until a comprehensive your clients, and Wong agreement Siew Lan and Seah Sai Hong, in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them, you in breach of your solicitor's undertaking released the said cashier's order to your clients when no such agreement had been reached between your clients, and Wong Siew Lan and Seah Sai Hong. Alternative Charge That you, Naidu Priyalatha, are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and or as solicitor as an officer honourable profession Profession Act (Chapter of the Supreme within the meaning Court of section a member of an 83(2){h) of the Legal 161) in that you, on 18 April 2017, despite having given your solicitor’s undertaking not to release a cashier's order for the sum of $26,896.45 made in favour of Balestier Hui Kee Pte Ltd to your clients (Ng Kar Kui and Chang Lien Siang) until a comprehensive agreement had been reached between your clients, and Wong Siew Lan and Seah Sai Hong, in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them, your solicitor’s undertaking you in breach of released the said cashier's order to your clients when no such agreement had been reached between your clients, and Wong Siew Lan and Seah Sai Hong. On 7 June 2021, the Respondent conduct in the discharge pleaded of her professional the Legal Profession Act (the LPA"). guilty to the Charge of grossly improper duty within the meaning ofs 83(2)(b) of Agreed Statement of Facts 5. The parties signed an Agreed Statement of Facts on 4 June 2021, which was tendered at the hearing on 7 June 2021. The following are the undisputed facts forming the background to the Charge, as stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Complainant, shareholders Ng Kar Kui ("Ng"), and Chang and directors of Balestier Hui Kee Lien Siang (“Chang”) were Pte Ltd (“the Company”). the Ng and Chang (who were married to each other) each held 30% of the shares of the Company, and the Complainant held 40% of the shares of the Company. Subsequent to the incorporation of the Company, the Company as a cook. The Complainant assistant to be employed by the Company. the Complainant engaged Seah Sai was employed Hong by (“Seah”) as an Factual Background The Company operated a wanton mee stall, and the Complainant and Seah worked at the stall. Initially, the Company's cash takings from the stalt were deposited into the Company's. bank account. However, the Complainant Company's Complainant made and allegations Seah that Ng had a dispute and Chang bank account without the knowledge had with Ng issued and Chang. cheques The from the or consent of the Complainant. The Complainant Company's stopped depositing the Company's cash takings from the stall into the bank account. The Respondent acted for Ng and Chang. Messrs Linus Law Chambers initially acted for the Complainant and Seah. By their without Messrs prejudice letter dated Linus Law Chambers 28 proposed February a settlement 2017 to the Respondent's firm, on behalf of the Complainant and Seah which included a term that they would pay the cash takings from the stal| for the period 19 December 2016 to 11 February 2017 amounting by way of a cashier's order in favour of the Company provide a detailed statement By her letter dated 29 March to the sum of $26,896.45 (‘the Cashier’s Order’), and of accounts for that period. 2017 to Messrs Linus Law Chambers, asked for, inter alia, the Cashier's Order by 6 pm that cay, the Respondent failing which legal action would be commenced. The Undertaking By their letter dated 29 March 2017 to the Respondent, Messrs Linus Law Chambers stated that the Cashier's Order was being handed over to the Respondent an undertaking by the Respondent until a comprehensive subject to not to release the Cashier's Order to her clients agreement was reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them ("the Undertaking’). In her letter dated 30 March stated that she would 2017 to Messrs Linus Law Cambers, the Respondent not release the cashier's order to her clients. The Undertaking 5 was given by the Respondent, as the sole proprietor of her firm, in her capacity as solicitor. On 24 April 2017, Ng and Chang commenced legal proceedings against the Complainant and Seah in DC/DC 1100/2017 (‘the DC Suit’). On 2 May 2017, Messrs Allen & Gledhill LLP entered an Appearance for the Complainant and Seah in the DC Suit. Breach of Undertaking By their letter dated 4 May 2017 to the Respondent, Messrs Allen & Gledhill LLP asked for the return of the Cashier's Order given that Ng and Chang had commenced the said legal proceedings. By her letter dated 9 May 2017 to Messrs Allen & Gledhill, the Respondent stated that she had held the Cashier's Order until 18 April 2017, and that the Cashier's Order was then deposited Company's by her clients into the Company's bank account to pay for the overheads that have fallen due. The above release of the Cashier's Order by the Respondent to her clients when there was no comprehensive agreement reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them amounted to a breach of the Undertaking by the Respondent. It was about 1 year and 7 months later in April 2018 during the Court Dispute Resolution Process in the State Courts before a District Judge that a settlement was reached between the Respondent's clients and the Complainant and Seah. 6 The Parties’ Submissions 6. The parties filed their respective submissions and further submissions on sanction on 10 June 2021 and 25 June 2021, with both parties taking the position that (a) no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under s 83 of the LPA, and (b) a penalty (or in the alternative a reprimand, as submitted by the Respondent) be imposed in this case. Te The Applicant submits that there is no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action in this case for the following reasons: a. The Cashier's Order, which the Respondent had undertaken not to release clients, did not represent monies that belonged to the Complainant, belonged to the Company. Reference was made Committee that she to Cashier's Order to them. was rather, the monies When the Respondent released the Cashier's Order to her clients in breach of the Undertaking, b. to her the the monies were paid to the Company. Respondent's response under a lot of pressure from submitted to the Inquiry her clients to release There does not appear to be any dishonesty the on the part of the Respondent. c. When the Complainant subsequently settled her dispute with the Respondent's clients, it was the Complainant who had to pay a further sum of $18,703 to the Respondent's clients, as agreed. 8. The Applicant in its first submissions directed attention to three cases as reference points as to whether the Respondent's breach of the Undertaking should be regarded 7 as a cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action: Re Lim Kiap Khee; Law Society of Singapore v Lim Kiap Khee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 398 (“Lim Kiap Kee"); Law Society of Singapore v Tham Kok Leong Thomas [2006] 1 SLR(R) 775 (“Thomas Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan {2016] SGDT In Lim Kiap Kee, the respondent solicitor, who acted Tham’) and 3 ("Allan Chan’). for the sub-purchaser of a property, gave an undertaking to hold 13% of the purchase price as stakeholder, and to release 8% and 5% of the purchase price to the developer on certain dates. The respondent solicitor failed to release the 8% and the 5% of the purchase price on the specified dates. He released the 8% only after considerable delay and reminders. teleased the 5% only after enforcement He action had been taken out by the developer (including the institution of bankruptcy proceedings). The disciplinary tribunal found the that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the respondent solicitor. 10. In Thomas Tham, the complainant needed banking facilities to import cars into Thailand. The complainant approached the respondent solicitor's client, Dr Wang, who represented a company which could parties agreed that the complainant assist opening would letters of credit for a fee. The deposit US$60,000 solicitor to be released to Dr Wang's company with the respondent upon the issue of a the import of cars. The respondent solicitor confirmed letter of credit for to the complainant's solicitors that his law firm would hold the US$60,000 and release it only when the letter of credit was issued. After the sum was deposited with tne company, Dr Wang requested that the respondent solicitor release US$54,000 to him that very same day. The respondent solicitor relented on the condition that Dr Wang give US$54,000 an favour respondent Subsequently, and indemnity in of the him the respondent solicitor released the remaining a personal solicitor's cheque for law firm. US$6,000 to Dr Wang with a similar requirement ofa cheque and indemnity from Dr Wang. The respondent 8 solicitor had breached his undertaking by releasing the US$54,000 and USS6,000 to Dr Wang. The disciplinary trinunal found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. 1. In contrast, in Alfan Chan, the disciplinary tribunal found that the breach of undertaking by the respondent solicitor was nat cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. In Allan Chan, the respondent solicitor provided undertakings to the complainant to provide security for costs in the total sum of $35,000 in an appeal, when his client had not put him in funds. His client thereafter changed lawyers and withdrew the appeal The Court ordered his former client to pay costs of $30,000 respondent solicitor only paid costs of $5,000. respondent paid the balance $25,000 committee; After the complaint was interest at the inquiry ensued. The improper conduct in the discharge of his professional 83(2)(b) of the LPA for his breach of undertaking, tribunal investigation before hearing disciplinary an with found the to the complainant. the matter by the disciplinary respondent solicitor The made, came the up tribunal guilty later of grossly duty within the meaning but determined for of s that there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action; the respondent solicitor was ordered to pay a penalty of $15,000 and costs of $5,000 12 The Applicant in its further submissions . referred to another disciplinary tribunal had found that a breach of undertaking was not cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. instance In Law Society of Singapore [1988] SGDSC 14 (‘Shanmugam’), the complainant the solicitor did not that pay respondent solicitor. The respondent chairman of the inquiry committee him $2,500 the by a respondent solicitor v Shanmugam respondent where he had complained deposited that with solicitor had given a written undertaking the to the that he would pay the $2,500 to the complainant. As a result of the undertaking, the inquiry committee complaint did not merit formal investigation by a disciplinary triounal. The respondent 3 reported to the Council that the solicitor however breached his undertaking and did not pay the complainant till after a complaint by the Law Society for the respondent solicitor's breach of undertaking was before the disciplinary tribunal. 13. The respondent solicitor explained that he had taken steps to pay the $2,500. He was resident in London and had asked Ms Irene Tan who was resident in Singapore and was holding some monies for the respondent solicitor to pay the $2,500 on his behalf. Ms Tan however had a nervous breakdown and did not make the payment. The respondent solicitor did not receive notice of the Law Society's complaint of his breach of undertaking till after it had been referred to the disciplinary tribunal for investigation; he made 14. payment thereafter. The Applicant in essence submits that the Respondent's breach of the Undertaking is less serious than the breaches in Lim Kiap Kee and culpable than the respondent solicitors Thomas in those two cases. Tham, and she is less In the two cases, the monies that the respondent solicitors held belonged to the complainants. In the present case, the cashier's belonged 15. to the order that the Respondent Complainant; rather they held did not represent belonged to the released the cashier's order to her clients in breach the monies were paid to the Company. therefore submits that the Respondent should When the of her undertaking, be ordered penalty of $15,000 and costs of $6,000 (inclusive of disbursements) The Applicant appears that Company. Respondent The Applicant monies to pay a to the Applicant. to be using Allan Chan as a reference point: there the penalty was stated as $15,000 and costs of $5,000 {inclusive of disbursements). 16. The Respondent's reasons for her submission that there is no cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action in her case are as follows: 10 The breach of the Undertaking was not deliberate. It was essentially a bare breach or a technical breach, which did not cause “any turmoil in anyone [sic] lives, the standing of the Law Society, or that of the Bar or that of anyone of us”. The Respondent contended that in determining whether there has been a breach of undertaking the court will put itself in the position of the parties in the exact circumstances at the time the undertaking was given and accepted. In this regard, the Cashier's Order which was the subject of the Undertaking was made in favour of the Company, and not the Respondent or her firm. There prolonged delay of any sort". The delay was that of the Complainant was “no in levying the Complaint. The Respondent did not benefit from the funds as these belonged to the Company. There was no loss suffered by anyone. Although the Cashier's Order was not to be released until a comprehensive settlement was reached by the parties, no settlement was forthcoming. “...[W]hat other alternative does the Respondent have but to give the [cashier's order to her clients] since the very purpose of the undertaking was to have a meeting for a ‘comprehensive agreement’ that was never achieved given ... the Complainant was prevaricating”. When Allen & Gledhill LLP wrote to the Respondent on 4 May 2017 for the return of the Cashier's Order, the Respondent replied in writing on 9 May 2017 stating that the Cashier's Order had since been deposited into the Company's was no surreptitiousness in this case, unlike the facts of Thomas bank account. There Tham. The performance of the Undertaking by the Respondent was Cashier's Order had already been deposited into the Company's impossible as the bank account. The Respondent's conduct in releasing the Cashier's Order was not so egregious as to bring dishonour to the profession. Her conduct was also not such that it lacked the qualities of character and trustworthiness which are necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities ofa legal practitioner. The Respondent, like the Applicant, referred to A/lan Chan, as a reference point, and contended that there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. The Respondent in her further submission also referred to Shanmugam and contended that as in the case of Shanmugam, there was no dishonesty on the part of the Respondent in her breach of the Undertaking. The Tribunal’s Determination 17. A solicitor's word is her bond; all the more so when the solicitor gives a formal undertaking. 18. As the Court of Three Judges in Lim Kiap Khee made clear at [21]: *..It is of utmost importance that a solicitor should abide by the undertaking he formally gives. It is the very foundation deliberately of an honourable breach an undertaking profession that its members solemnly given would act honourably. seriously undermine To the integrity of the profession and bring it into disrepute..." The Court of Three Judges in Thomas Tham at [29] repeated the above passage from Lim Kiap Kee. 12 20. In determining whether there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action, the evidence before us was confined to the Agreed Statement of facts. Although the parties had filed Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief, 21. On the evidence they were not admitted before us, the Respondent in evidence gave the Undertaking facilitating the resolution of the dispute between in the context of her clients on the one hand, and the Complainant and Seah on the other. 22, The Complainant and Seah did not want to deposit the cash takings of $26,896.45 earned stall the from the into Company’s bank account as they Respondent's clients were issuing cheques from the Company's the or consent knowledge of the Complainant. The alleged that the bank account without Respondent held the Cashier's Order, which embodied the cash takings of $26,896.45, as a stakeholder; she was not to release the Cashier's Order to her clients until a comprehensive settlement had been teached by the parties. 23. The Respondent however released the Cashier's Order to her clients on 18 April 2017, and her clients deposited it into the Company's bank account to pay for the Company’s overheads that had fallen due. 24. The Respondent admits that the release of the Cashier's Order by her when there was no comprehensive agreement reached by the parties in full and settlement of all the issues and claims between them amounts to a breach of the Undertaking by her. 25. We accept Undertaking. that the Respondent did not act dishonestly when she breached the She was forthright in telling Allen & Gledhill, when they requested the return of the Cashier's Order, that she had released the Cashier's Order to her clients. 13 The Respondent did not benefit personally from her release of the Cashier's Order: it was made out in the name of the Company and deposited into the Company's bank account. 26. We do not accept the Respondent’s not deliberate. The Agreed Statement part of the Respondent, Her handing submission that her breach of undertaking of Facts do not refer to any uncertainty on the or any dispute by her as to the meaning over the Cashier's was of the Undertaking. Order to her clients was a deliberate act, as opposed to an accidental or inadvertent act. 27. We also do not accept the Respondent's submission that any breach was a bare or technical breach as there was no settlement forthcoming, and she had no alternative but to give the Cashier's Order to her clients as the purpose of the Undertaking to have a meeting for the comprehensive 28. agreement, was not achieved. First, it is not correct that the Respondent had no alternative but to give the Cashier's Order to her clients. She could have continued to hold on to the Cashier's Order to maintain could the contemplated have simply Instead, returned platform for the parties to resolve their disputes, the Cashier's Order to Messrs Linus Law or she Chambers. she chose to release the Cashier's Order to her clients on 18 April 2017, less than a month after the Cashier's Order had been given to her. 29. Secondly, of the alternatives she had, the choice to release the Cashier's Order to her clients was not open to her; the very purpose of the Undertaking was to ensure that the Respondent would not release the Cashier's Order to her clients if there was no comprehensive agreement. 30. We further do not accept the to perform the Undertaking the Company’s Respondent's submission that it was impossible for her as the Cashier's Order had already been deposited bank account. With respect, this submission into has no merit whatsoever Such impossibility was created by the Respondent's act of handing over the Cashier's Order to her clients in breach of the Undertaking. 31. We now address the submission made by both the Applicant and the Respondent that in the present case no loss was suffered by the breach of the Undertaking as the Cashier's Order did not represent monies that belonged to the Complainant (or Seah); rather the monies Company's belonged to the Company, and the bank account. The Applicant also submitted monies were paid into the that when the parties finally agreed to a settlement, it was the Complainant who had to pay a further sum of $18,703 to the Respondent's clients. 32. In our view, the fact that Cashier's Order did not represent monies that belonged to the Complainant or Seah is not central to the culpability of the Respondent's breach of the Undertaking. The dispute among the parties was whether the Respondent's were to from entitled Complainant’s issue cheques knowledge the Company's and account without the Seah accordingly did not want to deposit the cash takings of $26,896.45 into the Company's bank account until there was a comprehensive or consent. The Complainant bank clients agreement of all issues and claims between them and the Respondent's clients. The Undertaking therefore required the Respondent to hold the Cashier's Order which embodied Undertaking, Company's the Respondent the $26,896.45 as stakeholder. facilitated her clients paying By breaching the $26,896.45 bank account which was precisely what the Complainant objected to in the absence of a resolution of the disputes. 15 the into the and Seah had 33. Save that a settlement among the parties was reached during the Court Dispute Resolution Process in the State Courts before the District Judge in April 2018 — about a year after proceedings were started — no details of the settlement were provided in the Agreed Statement of Facts. We however take into consideration the Applicant's admission in its submissions that at the settlement, the Complainant agreed to pay the Respondents 2018 $18,703. The context of the negotiations which led to the settlement in has however changed from the context of any negotiations in 2017 when the $26,896.45 had not been paid into the Company's bank account. Any settlement may well have taken a different form or contained different terms if the Cashier's Order had not been released by the Respondent in breach of the Undertaking. 34. The Complainant had entrusted the Respondent accordance with the Undertaking. to hold on to the Cashier's Order in However, the Complainant lost any benefit she may have had in being able to negotiate a settlement while the Cashier's Order remained unbanked into the Company's bank account when the Respondent breached the Undertaking. 35. The Court of Three Judges in Lim Kiap Kee at [26] drew a distinction between a breach that was an oversight and one that was deliberate. In our view, the Respondent in the present case had deliberately breached the Undertaking. 36. The Court of Three Judges in Thomas Tham made clear that even in that case where the respondent undertaking solicitor but wanted did not intend to benefit to facilitate the performance personally of the transaction cannot be lost sight of that the respondent solicitor “had disregarded in him” by the party to whom he had given his undertaking 16 from (at [29]). a breach of (at [32]), it the trust reposed 37. Although the Applicant and the Respondent present case and Alian Chan, and invited us to draw similarities Shanmugam between the (especially the former), in our view both cases can be distinguished from the present case. 38. In Allan Chan the respondent solicitor had furnished an undertaking for security for costs for an appeal to prevent his erstwhile client's case from being struck out by an unless order as the client was overseas at the time, on the faith of his client’s promise to put him in funds in due course (at [13]). He has given his undertaking due to the urgency of the appeal timeline. There was no such urgency or Court deadline to meet in the present case. 39 The respondent complainant solicitor had ultimately made good on his undertaking with interest (at [6(8)] and [16]), and the Complainant withdraw her complaint (at [18]). The Respondent by paying the was prepared to in the present case has not made good on the Undertaking, and indeed cannot make good on the Undertaking because, by her own act of handing over the Cashier's Order to her clients in breach of the Undertaking, she has rendered any compliance by her with the Undertaking impossible. 40. The Disciplinary Tribunal in Allan Chan found that the respondent solicitor had through his own misjudgement or foolishness extended his undertaking on costs without first securing from his client the funds necessary to make good on the undertaking in the event it was called on. He was unfortunately placed in a position where he was obliged to honour his undertaking without any assurance of repayment from his client (at [29]). This is not the case in the present matter: there is nothing in the Agreed Statement of Facts or any assertion by the Respondent that she had breached the Undertaking out of misjudgement or foolishness. i 41. As for Shanmugam, undertaken to the respondent solicitor had taken steps to pay the $2,500 he had pay, but intervening circumstances; amount. the amount remained because, because of unexpected he did eventually make good his undertaking and paid the In the present case, the Respondent the Undertaking, unpaid has not taken any step to make good as stated previously, by her own act of handing Cashier's Order to her clients in breach of the Undertaking, over the she rendered compliance of the Undertaking by her impossible. 42. It bears repeating that it is the foundation of an honourable profession that a member abides by her undertaking. A deliberate breach by a member will seriously undermine the integrity of the profession. 43. The Respondent was entrusted to hold on to the Cashier's Order in accordance with the Undertaking. She disregarded the trust reposed in her as she breached the Undertaking. 44. In the circumstances of the present case, notwithstanding the submissions of the Applicant and the Respondent to the contrary, we find that on the scale of culpability, there is cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 83 of the LPA in relation to the Charge. Conclusion 45. For the reasons set out above, and based on the Respondent's acceptance that she is guilty of the Charge, the Tribunal determines, pursuant to s 93(1)(c) of the LPA, that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under s 83 of the LPA. 18 1 October 2021 2022-07-09T02:00:31+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2022/ In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2022/ af78125759e10cf1382af1411ef33bca11108573

Links from other tables