lss_dt_reports_version: 17

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
17 17 1 1049 In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor These proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the LPA and as such Council is required to refer the matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) for formal investigation. The complaint pertained to the Respondent’s conduct in relation to Originating Summons (Adoption) No. 355 of 2014 and his subsequent correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empaneled a DT presided by Ms Molly Lim SC and Mr Teo Weng Kie as DT member. Charges Three main and alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) (Cap 161, S 706/2015) regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to assist in the administration of justice were breached due to the Respondent providing copies of the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings without having obtained the court’s permission to do so, thus breaching Rule 671 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR) (No 27 of 2014, S 813/2014). Alternative 1st Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to assist in the administration of justice were breached due to the Respondent providing copies of the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings without having obtained the Court’s permission to do so, thus breaching Rule 671 of the FJR. 2nd Charge For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in falsely claiming by way of a letter dated 28 December 2017, addressed to the AGC, that he had expressly sought the leave of the Court during the hearing to release the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to the client’s friends and relatives when in fact no such request was made by the Court. Alternative 2nd Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in falsely claiming by way of a letter dated 28 December 2017, addressed to the AGC, that he had expressly sought the leave of the court during the hearing to release the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to the client’s friends and relatives when in fact no such request was made by the Court. 3rd Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in omitting to mention in his letter dated 28 December 2017 addressed to the AGC that he had, on or around 26 December 2017, disseminated the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings, despite a direct query from the AGC on the same in its letter dated 28 December 2017, thus conveying an inaccurate impression that he and/or his firm were not involved in and/or responsible for the dissemination of the brief grounds to the members of the media. Alternative 3rd Charge For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court were breached due to the Respondent’s dishonest conduct in omitting to mention in his letter dated 28 December 2017 addressed to the AGC that he had, on or around 26 December 2017, disseminated the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings, despite a direct query from the AGC on the same in its letter dated 28 December 2017, thus conveying an inaccurate impression that he and/or his firm were not involved in and/or responsible for the dissemination of the brief grounds to the members of the media. Findings and Determination of the DT; Council’s Sanctions The DT found the Respondent guilty of the Alternative 1st Charge with the other charges against the Respondent dismissed. No cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the LPA as the DT determined that there was an absence of any dishonesty and deceit. However, should there be dishonesty and deceit under different circumstances, the DT may be minded to find otherwise that, there may be sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and the Respondent was subsequently imposed with a penalty of $10,000. Costs (to be agreed or taxed) were also ordered by the DT to be payable by the Respondent to the Law Society. To access the full report, click here. https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/DT_Report_Koh_Tien_Hua.pdf DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SECRETARIAT 1 SUPREME COURT LANE, SINGAPORE 178879 TEL: 6332 4040, 6332 4060, FAX: 6332 4061 DT/SEC/13/2019 28 May 2020 BY EMAIL Director, Conduct Department The Law Society of Singapore 28 Maxwell Road #01-03 Maxwell Chambers Suite Singapore 069120 Dear Sir PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF KOH TIEN HUA AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR Pursuant to section 93(4)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), I submit a copy of the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of Mr Koh Tien Hua. Yours faithfully EDWIN SAN SECRETARY DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL C:DT/13/2019.(18D) - ES/AC 28th May 28th May 2021-10-06T06:00:51+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/ In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/ a93b79b369ffe50dd19a9d28cd1430016e5ca045

Links from other tables