lss_dt_reports_version: 42

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
42 40 2 1653   In the Matter of Krishnamoorthi s/o Kolanthaveloo (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Mr Seto Wan Tarng (the Complainant). The Respondent was admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on 8 July 1992 and was, at all material times, a partner of M/s K. Krishna & Partners (the Firm). The Complainant had sustained personal injuries in a motor accident while driving his taxi. He sent his taxi for repairs at ComfortDelGro’s authorised car repairer, who referred him to the Firm regarding his personal injury claim. The Complainant signed the Firm’s Warrant to Act on 17 May 2019, and received the Firm’s letter dated 30 May 2019 confirming their appointment to act and enquiring as to his medical condition. The Respondent then received a specialist medical report on the Complainant’s injuries around 28 August 2019, but did not seek the Complainant’s instructions on it nor advise the Complainant on the quantum of damages claimable in respect of his injuries. Without seeking the Complainant’s instructions or keeping him informed, between 26 September 2019 and 17 December 2019, the Respondent proceeded to exchange letters with NTUC Income (the insurers for the tortfeasor) (NTUC) to settle the Complainant’s claim, including counter-proposals by the Respondent. Copies of these correspondences were not provided to the Complainant by the Respondent or the Firm. Throughout the entire duration of the Respondent’s handling of the claim: the Respondent did not personally speak with the Complainant at any time; all dealings were between the Respondent’s paralegal, Mr Veknesh Mohanathass (Veknesh) or other staff and the Complainant; none of the Firm’s emails to NTUC, or NTUC’s emails to the Firm, were furnished to the Complainant; there was no email communication between the Firm and the Complainant; and no reasonable advice was given to the Complainant regarding his personal injury claim, party-and-party costs and solicitor-and-client costs. On 17 December 2019, Veknesh telephoned the Complainant to discuss NTUC’s counter-offer of 17 December 2019, during which the Complainant was informed that NTUC had initially offered compensation of $2,000; the Complainant informed Veknesh that he was unhappy with the figure of $2,000 and wanted a sum of at least $3,000; Veknesh explained that it was unlikely that NTUC would increase their offer such that the Complainant would receive more than $3,000; and at the end of the discussion, the Complainant agreed to accept a sum of $2,800. On 18 December 2019, there was another telephone conversation between Veknesh and the Complainant, during which Veknesh informed the Complainant about NTUC’s counter-offer of 18 December 2019. On 2 January 2020, the Firm sent a letter to the Complainant, enclosing NTUC’s discharge voucher dated 17 December 2019 for the amount of $5,783.49 in settlement of the Complainant’s claims. The Complainant signed the discharge voucher and the matter was eventually concluded on around 28 January 2020 when the Complainant collected a cheque of $3,500 from the Firm after paying $700 in cash. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Lok Vi Ming SC and Ms Disa Sim Jek Sok as DT member. One amended charge was proceeded against the Respondent (the Amended Charge): Amended Charge For breach of Rules 5(2)(b), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(h) and 17(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 in that the Respondent: issued the Firm’s 26 September 2019 letter to NTUC, rejected their counter-offer of 25 November 2019, and issued the Firm’s further counter-offer of 2 December 2019 to them, without the Complainant’s instructions; failed to keep the Complainant informed of the matters in (a) above and did not supply copies of any correspondence passing between the Firm and NTUC throughout the entire duration of his handling of the claim; and failed to give any reasonable advice to the Complainant on his personal injury claim, his right to recover party-party costs from the tortfeasor, and his liability to pay solicitor-client costs to the Firm; amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA). Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The DT concluded that this is not a case where only reprimand or a censure is appropriate. It is the very core of a legal practitioner’s duty to give proper guidance and advice to a client, especially so where the client may lack certain sophistication and general understanding of the law such as in this case. It was therefore incumbent on the Respondent to give a full breakdown of what the Claimant would be getting in NTUC’s various offers and a proper explanation on the various types of costs he should pay. However, the DT notes that due consideration should be placed on the fact that the Respondent had pleaded guilty to the Amended Charge on the first day of the hearing on 6 June 2022. The Respondent had also since returned the sum of $700 which was charged as solicitor-and-client costs to the Complainant. The DT placed great weight on this gesture as the gravamen of the complaint was that the Complainant felt aggrieved that he had to pay the Firm $700 from the damages for his personal injury claim, despite the manner in which the Respondent had handled his matter. Nevertheless, the DT noted that the Complainant’s dissatisfaction would also have been mitigated or completely avoided if the Respondent kept him informed of the various offers exchanged between NTUC and the Firm, and supplied him copies of the correspondence passing between the Firm and NTUC. He would then at least have had the opportunity to raise queries or objections regarding NTUC’s various offers and would have been aware of the party-and-party costs of $2,283.49 claimed by the Firm instead of only finding out when he received NTUC’s discharge voucher on 2 January 2020. Therefore, the DT was of the view that the issue of the $700 payment falls squarely within the four corners of the Respondent’s failures as reflected in the Amended Charge. The DT determined that while there exists no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the LPA, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of pursuant to section 93(1)(b)(i) of the LPA and recommended the sum of $3,500 which the DT considers sufficient and appropriate for the misconduct committed. The DT also ordered the Respondent to pay costs of $4,000 (all-in). Council accepted the findings of the DT and imposed a financial penalty of $2,500 on the Respondent. To access the full report, click here.           84760194569271f4621bb4b8945e789ee70a0c54

Links from other tables