lss_dt_reports_version: 34

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
34 34 1 1049 In the Matter of Lee Terk Yang (the “Respondent”), Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Lee Terk Yang (the “Respondent”), Advocate and Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal has determined under section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act that cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint that the Respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse with the client in the course of representing her in her divorce proceedings. The Charge “You Lee Terk Yang, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that you had a close personal relationship with a client between December 2013 and March 2014 and/or did engage in sexual intercourse with the client between 28 and 29 January 2014, when you were the solicitor having conduct of negotiations in respect of ancillary matters in divorce proceedings instituted in the High Court by the client.” Findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) The DT agrees with the approach taken by the Respondent that the admitted conduct whilst “grossly improper” by itself cannot automatically give rise to the determination that “cause of sufficient gravity” exists under section 83. Such determination is only arrived at by way of meticulous fact based enquiry along with a scrutiny of all applicable mitigation factors. In terms of precedent, the DT notes that the decision in Dennis Singham looms large in these proceedings and regardless of whether actual prejudice is caused, the solicitor-client relationship should not be compromised by indiscretions of this nature when it occupies the highest position of trust and confidence, even though the Respondent has not taken any step in the substantial part of the proceedings, and has taken steps subsequently to transfer the file to another firm. In making the determination that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 93(1)(c) of the Act, the DT was mindful that the Respondent had engaged in a personal and sexual relationship which was not a one off and there is a conflict between his and his client’s interest. Further such conduct tarnished his own reputation as an advocate and solicitor as well as the profession as a whole. These factors elevated the present case of gross misconduct to one of cause of sufficient gravity’. 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.     2018-02-07T04:00:40+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2018/ In the Matter of Lee Terk Yang (the “Respondent”), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2018/ cd54bacdae9f2bc02e6be7547205e9bb86ff0b08

Links from other tables