lss_dt_reports_version: 37

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
37 37 1 1049 In the Matter of Thirumuthy Ayernaar Pambayan (the “Respondent”), Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Thirumuthy Ayernaar Pambayan (the “Respondent”), Advocate and Solicitor Pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act (the “Act’) the Disciplinary Tribunal (‘DT’) determined that cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action against the Respondent under section 83 of the Act. The Respondent’s client complained that the Respondent had entered into a prohibited borrowing transaction with him. The Charges The Society tendered the following charges against the Respondent: 1st Charge “You, Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan, an advocate and solicitor are charged that on or about 26 January 2012, you did enter into a prohibited borrowing transaction by virtue of which the sum of $3,000 was borrowed by you from your client, one Chandran s/o Eruthi Yanathan, and such conduct by you amounts to a breach of Rule 33(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council of the Law Society (the “Council”) under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161)” 2nd Charge “You, Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan, an advocate and solicitor are charged that on or about 26 June 2012, you did enter into a prohibited borrowing transaction by virtue of which the sum of $8,000 was borrowed by you from your client, one Chandran s/o Eruthi Yanathan, and such conduct by you amounts to a breach of Rule 33(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council of the Law Society (“the Council”) under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161)” Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) The DT accepted that only two loans of $3,000 and $8,000 were obtained from the complainant. The DT accepted that the complainant was carrying on a business as an unlicensed moneylender. The DT considered the decision of the Court of Three Judges in Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng Christopher [2014] SGHC 188 where the Court noted that breach of Rules 33(a) and (34(a) of the PCR “is one that will be viewed extremely seriously by this court. The rationale for prohibiting solicitors from borrowing from their clients (except where the clients have obtained independent legal advice) should be apparent. A client is vulnerable vis-a-vis his solicitor because the latter enjoys a position of influence over the client and the client may find it difficult to deny a loan simply because of the trust and confidence he has reposed in the solicitor. … Whilst a solicitor who borrows from his client who is not independently advised may not be considered dishonest in the usual sense, he is certainly taking advantage of his position to obtain a benefit for himself in breach of his duty of fidelity.” The Council’s Decision Council accepted and adopted the findings of the DT and proceeded to apply for the Respondent to show cause before the Court of Three Judges pursuant to section 98 of the Act. The Court of Three Judges The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be suspended for a period of two months noting that: “A term of suspension was warranted despite the absence of aggravating factors in order to send a consistent and strong message to the profession that a breach of the rule against prohibited borrowing transactions was viewed seriously by the court, and that a solicitor should under no circumstances borrow from his client unless any of the prescribed exceptions apply. Balancing the need for general deterrence with the particular facts and circumstances of this case – in particular the lack of aggravating factors and the fact that the Respondent was remorseful, a relatively short term of suspension of two months was appropriate.”     2018-01-07T04:00:19+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/ In the Matter of Thirumuthy Ayernaar Pambayan (the “Respondent”), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/ 9152e6251a5658c006333f81b4c9c76537ac2a6d

Links from other tables