lss_dt_reports_version: 19

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
19 19 1 1049 In the Matter of Looi Wan Hui, Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Looi Wan Hui, Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) had 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 $8,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint lodged against him by a fellow Director of the Respondent’s former law practice. The Respondent was a Director of the said law practice until 31 August 2016 and was an associate of the law practice from 1 to 30 September 2016. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent had: continued his unauthorised practice under the name and style of the law practice after 30 September 2016; and failed to produce his accounting records and supporting documents pertaining to his legal practice with the law practice. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent at the onset of the proceedings: 1st Charge “That you, Looi Wan Hui, have been: 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 Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161)); and/or guilty of a breach of Rule 7(1) and 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (being a breach of your obligation as a legal practitioner to accord another legal practitioner due respect to the latter as a member of a noble and honourable profession, and to treat the latter with courtesy and fairness) pursuant to Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) in that you had continued to practice under the name and style of M/s JLim Law Corporation without the necessary permissions to do so after 30 September 2016, causing M/s JLim Law Corporation and the Complainant to have to take up a formal application in Court to rectify the undesirable circumstances caused by your conduct.” 2nd Charge “That you, Looi Wan Hui, have been: 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 Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161)); and/or guilty of a breach of Rule 7(1) and 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (your obligation as a legal practitioner to accord another legal practitioner due respect to the latter as a member of a noble and honourable profession, and to treat the latter with courtesy and fairness) pursuant to section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) in that you had failed to do what was reasonably necessary to finalise and complete your exit from M/s JLim Law Corporation, causing M/s JLim Law Corporation and the Complainant to have to take up a formal application in Court to rectify the undesirable circumstances caused by your conduct.” Findings by the DT In relation to the 1st Charge, the DT noted that the Complainant had agreed to the Respondent’s request to be made JLim Law Corporation’s Associate for the month of September 2016, as a favour, to enable the Respondent to set up his own law practice. However, the Respondent did not facilitate the transfer of files and carried on with some matters in the name of the Complainant’s firm. The DT found that the Respondent’s actions were most discourteous and unfair to the Complainant and gave a totally false impression that the Complainant’s firm were still the solicitors on record when this was not the case. It was noted that the Respondent’s actions necessitated the Complainant resorting to legal action. Accordingly, the DT found that the Respondent had contravened Rule 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR 2015) and was guilty of improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. As for the 2nd Charge, the DT noted that the Respondent had an obligation to handover the relevant documents to the firm for filing of GST and annual returns and his failure to do so was to the detriment of the Complainant/Complainant’s law practice and lacked courtesy and that the law practice would be in breach of regulatory obligations. Further, this necessitated the Complainant to make an application to the Court in MC 22724/2016 to compel the Respondent to do so. Accordingly, the DT found that the Respondent had contravened Rule 7(2) of the PCR 2015 and was guilty of improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) the Act. The DT also noted that the Respondent went bankrupt in February 2017. Given the said circumstances, the DT had 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, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of $8,000. Further, the DT ordered that costs of the proceedings to be fixed at $2,000. 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 $8,000.     2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ In the Matter of Looi Wan Hui, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/ 98c782e778c631c425564e4fc4327ec6366db7f1

Links from other tables