lss_dt_reports_version: 32

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
32 32 1 1049 In the matter of Ong Pang Meng, an Advocate and Solicitor In the matter of Ong Pang Meng, an Advocate and Solicitor The disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint as to how the Respondent had dealt with an interim payment of $20,000 received from insurers on behalf of the complainant, his client, for the client’s injury claim and the Respondent’s breach of his of duty of care and diligence to his client. The Law Society preferred five charges for grossly improper conduct pursuant to section 83(2)(b), of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) for: Requesting the complainant to transfer a sum of $20,000 into a joint account maintained by the Respondent and his wife and upon the receipt of the said sum, being client’s money as defined in the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules, failing to transfer without delay the said sum into a client account in a breach of Rule 3(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (PCR); Failing to maintain a reasonable level of communication with his client, the complainant, despite the client’s multiple attempts to contact him directly and indirectly in breach of Rule 17 of the PCR; Failing to provide a statement of account to his client for a sum of $5,000, being client’s money, which he retained since on or about 6 May 2011 despite your client’s requests for a statement of account or return thereof in breach of Rule 19 of the PCR; Without authority, instructions and/or consent, accepting a counter-proposal of $6,000 offered by the Plaintiff in respect of a matter in which his client was the Defendant; Failing to explain in a clear manner the counter-proposal of $6,000 offered by the Plaintiff in respect a matter in which his client was the Defendant in breach of Rule 21 of the PCR. Several alternative charges were also preferred. Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) On the 1st Charge, the DT was of the view that it is clear that Rule 3 of the Solicitors’ Account Rules read with Rule 9 of the said Rules requires client’s money to be deposited into a client account without delay unless the exceptions in Rule 9 apply and none of the exceptions were applicable in this case. The DT therefore found the Respondent in breach of Rule 3(1) of the said Rule and that the 1st and 1st alternative charge were made out. On the 2nd Charge the DT was of the view that that the failure to maintain a reasonable level of communication with a client could also constitute a failure to keep the client reasonably informed of the progress of his matters under Rule 17 of the PCR. The DT also noted that there was a case of a breach of Rule 20(a) for failure to promptly respond to client’s telephone calls without good and sufficient reasons. Having examined the various correspondences between the parties, the DT was not convinced that the Respondent had communicated with the Complainant as to the counter-proposal when it was evident that he was ignorant or lacked knowledge of this. In any event, there were no telephone memos, files notes or records were offered by the Respondent and in their absence, the DT drew an adverse inference and found the 2nd charge, its alternative and further alternative made out. On the 3rd Charge, the DT noted the admission by the Respondent that he failed to render a statement of account for the $5,000 retained as alleged fees even when the Complainant asked for a breakdown as to the said amount. The Respondent should have rendered a bill or a statement of account following requests made by the Complainant but admitted he did not and he was effectively in breach of Rule 19 of the Rules. In relation to the alternative charge concerning Rule 35(a) of the Rules, the DT referred found that there was no agreed fees and accordingly found the 3rd Charge, its alternative and further alternative made out. As for the 4th Charge and its alternative are in substance the same, the DT elected to deal with the principal charge and its further alternative only. As the issue as to whether the counter-proposal by the Plaintiff was accepted without instructions, authority or consent of the Complainant, the DT noted that the evidence has been considered in the course of its deliberation on the 2nd Charge and consequently found the 4th Charge and its further alternative made out. Finally, on the 5th Charge, the DT noted that it goes without saying that the Respondent had acted without the instructions, authority or consent of the Complainant in accepting the Plaintiff’s counter-proposal. In this regard, it must follow that the Respondent had failed to explain in a clear manner as to the counter-proposal. The DT took the view that the 5th Charge constituted a separate and distinct charge relating to a specific rule under the PCR, namely Rule 21. Accordingly, the DT found the 5th Charge and its alternative made out. At the conclusion of the proceedings the DT determined under section 93(1)(c) of the Act that cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action 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 suspended for a period of three months.     2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ In the matter of Ong Pang Meng, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ ab7304071543c6788244a88b1a5f0f3676112c40

Links from other tables