lss_dt_reports_version: 18

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
18 18 1 1049 In the Matter of Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint made by one Mr Tan Ng Kuang (Mr Tan) and one Ms Lim Siew Soo (Ms Lim) (jointly, the Complainants), who were insolvency practitioners with nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (nTan), against the Respondent as well as one Mr Jai Swarup Pathak (Mr Pathak) of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Gibson Dunn). The complaint stemmed from the circumstances leading to and following the Complainants’ appointment as judicial managers (JMs) of Punj Lloyd Pte Ltd (PLPL) and Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (SEC) (jointly, the Companies). The complaint was that the Complainants had agreed with PLL, through the Respondent and Mr Pathak (who were acting for PLL), to be appointed the JMs for the Companies on condition that PLL would make a cash deposit of $2 million, either with nTan or Gibson Dunn, in escrow. The Complainants’ judicial management fees, billed at an hourly rate, would be paid out of the said cash deposit and that Gibson Dunn had received and held $500,000 as part of the said deposit for the JMs’ fees. The Complainants had (through a letter issued by the Complainants’ then-solicitors, Tan Kok Quan Partnership) requested for payment of the said $500,000 to the Complainants’ account. Contrary to the agreement, in response to the Complainants’ said request, the Respondent had informed them that Gibson Dunn were not holding any fee deposit for the Complainants. Consequently, the sum of $500,000 was not paid out to the Complainants. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a DT presided by Ms Molly Lim SC and Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin as DT member. Charges Two main and four alternative charges (collectively, the Six Charges) were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge (Charge 1) For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for Punj Lloyd Limited (PLL), knowing that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing Punj Lloyd Pte Ltd and Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (the Companies) whilst under judicial management, and having received two tranches of S$250,000 on or between 17 August 2016 and 8 September 2016 as part of that deposit, assisted or permitted PLL, in a manner the Respondent considered dishonest or ought to have considered dishonest, to wit, in not paying each of the tranches to the Judicial Managers when the Judicial Managers made a written demand for them through solicitors on 2 September 2016 for S$250,000, and again on 22 September 2016 for S$500,000 after the Respondent indicated that he had ceased to act for PLL in its dealings with the Judicial Managers and is therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR). Alternative 1st Charge (Charge 1A) For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, knowing that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, and having received two tranches of S$250,000 on or between 17 August 2016 and 8 September 2016 as part of that deposit, assisted or permitted PLL, in a manner the Respondent considered dishonest or ought to have considered dishonest, to wit, in not paying each of the tranches to the Judicial Managers when the Judicial Managers made a written demand for them through solicitors on 2 September 2016 for S$250,000, and again on 22 September 2016 for S$500,000 after the Respondent indicated that he had ceased to act for PLL in its dealings with the Judicial Managers. 2nd Charge (Charge 2A) For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, caused the Judicial Managers to continue to believe that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management by sending emails that confirmed that such deposit had been made in part, and is therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR. Alternative 2nd Charge (Charge 2B) For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, did not while acting for PLL clarify PLL’s position that it had not agreed to so fund the judicial management and is therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR. Further Alternative 2nd Charge (Charge 2AA) For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, caused the Judicial Managers to continue to believe that PLL had agreed to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management by sending emails that confirmed that such deposit had been made in part. Further Alternative 2nd Charge (Charge 2BB) For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the Respondent, while he and Jai Swarup Pathak were acting for PLL, assisted or permitted PLL to mislead the Judicial Managers of the Companies in a manner the Respondent knew or ought to have known was dishonest, to wit, when knowing that the Judicial Managers of the Companies believed that PLL had agreed prior to their appointment to deposit S$2 million towards the costs of managing the Companies whilst under judicial management, did not while acting for PLL clarify PLL’s position that it had not agreed to so fund the judicial management. Findings and Determination of the DT; Council’s Sanctions The DT first found that they had jurisdiction to deal with the Six Charges. The DT then subsequently found that Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR was not applicable to the facts of the complaint as it was intended to apply to Court proceedings. As such, Charges 1, 2A and 2B which involved a breach of Rule 10(6)(b) of the PCR could not be maintained against the Respondent and were dismissed. The DT also found that although there was a Deposit Agreement made between PLL and the Complainants, Charge 1A was not made out against the Respondent as the totality of the evidence before the DT did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent had assisted or permitted PLL, in a manner which the Respondent considered dishonest or ought to have considered dishonest, in not paying the $500,000 for the Judicial Managers’ fees. As for Charges 2AA and 2BB, these were alternative charges to Charge 1A proffered against the Respondent on the basis that there was no Deposit Agreement and, in light of the DT’s finding that there was a Deposit Agreement, it was unnecessary for the DT to deal with Charges 2AA and 2BB. The DT thus found that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the LPA. Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT with the Respondent and the Complainants bearing their respective costs. To access the full report, click here. https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/DT_Report_Lee_Teck_Leng_Robson_(DT_4)_20-25.pdf DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SECRETARIAT 1 SUPREME COURT LANE, SINGAPORE 178879 TEL: 6332 4040, 6332 4060, FAX: 6332 4061 DT/SEC/04/2020 1 February 2021 BY EMAIL Director, Conduct Department The Law Society of Singapore 39 South Bridge Road Singapore 058673 Mr Tan Chuan Thye, SC Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP 9 Straits View Marina One West Tower #06-07 Singapore 018937 Dear Sirs PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF LEE TECK LENG ROBSON 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 Lee Teck Leng Robson Yours faithfully EDWIN SAN SECRETARY DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL C:DT/04/2020.(18D) - ES/NA/AC 61 was not guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA; as Charges 2AA and 2BB were alternative charges to Charge 1A proffered against the Respondent on the basis that there was no Deposit Agreement, in light of the DT’s finding that there was a Deposit Agreement, it was unnecessary for the DT to deal with Charges 2AA and 2BB; pursuant to Section 93(1)(a) of the LPA, the DT determined that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under Section 83 of the LPA; and the DT ordered that the Respondent and the Complainants shall each bear his or their respective costs. Dated this 1st day of February 2021. President Advocate & Solicitor Ms Molly Lim, SC Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin 2021-10-06T06:00:51+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/ In the Matter of Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/ 9543a7360cb43aca1b5ce935887b94d278d4b587

Links from other tables