data: lss_dt_reports_version

44 rows

descending

_commit_at	_commit_hash	_id	_item	_version	_commit	title	content	pdf-link	pdf-content	timestamp	url	unique_id	_item_full_hash	_changed_columns
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	1	1	1	1049	In the Matter of Teo Eng Thye (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Teo Eng Thye (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Goh Yng Yng Karen (the Complainant), who was the daughter of the late Mdm Liew Khoon Fong (Mdm Liew) and executrix of Mdm Liew’s will. The complaint arose from two Powers of Attorney (POA) dated 20 November 2017. POA 6414 was related to the sale of 107 Namly Avenue (Namly Property), while POA 6417 was related to the purchase of a condominium unit (Condominium Unit). At the material time, Mdm Liew was 87 years old. On or around 17 November 2017, Mdm Liew’s son (Kelvin), as well as Kelvin’s wife (Jacqueline), visited the Respondent to seek his assistance to prepare two POAs for Mdm Liew who was not present at this meeting. On Kelvin’s instructions, the Respondent prepared the two POAs for Mdm Liew on or around 20 November 2017. The Respondent had prepared the draft POAs without receiving any written, or any other authority, from Mdm Liew authorising Kelvin to give him instructions on her behalf. The Respondent met and spoke to Mdm Liew for the first time on 20 November 2017 at the Namly Property. Kelvin, Jacqueline, their sons, one Goh Eng Sheng Daniel (Daniel) and one Goh Eng Chun David (David) were present. Mdm Liew signed the POAs at this meeting. POA 6414 authorised Kelvin to act on Mdm Liew’s behalf to sell the Namly Property and have the sale proceeds paid to Daniel, then 19 years old, to hold on trust for Mdm Liew for the purchase of the Condominium Unit. POA 6417 authorised Kelvin to purchase the Condominium Unit in Mdm Liew and Daniel’s names, with Kelvin having the authority to add himself as a joint owner. It also authorised Kelvin to borrow monies from banks and other financial institutions on the security of the Condominium Unit if the sale proceeds from the Namly Property sale were insufficient. Kelvin was also authorised to execute documents, such as an option to purchase and sale and purchase agreement on behalf of Mdm Liew. On 22 November 2017, K…	https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/dtr-2023-06-c.pdf	DT/SEC/21/2021 IN THE MATTER OF TEO ENG THYE AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (CHAPTER 161) Between THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE .---Applicant And TEO ENG THYE .---Respondent Mr Davinder Singh, S.C. (President) Mr K. Anparasan (Advocate & Solicitor) Mr Vikna Rajah and Ms Antje Wong for the Law Society of Singapore Mr Peter Cuthbert Low, Ms Elaine Low and Ms Christine Low for the Respondent REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL A. INTRODUCTION 1. The Complainant is one Goh Yng Yng Karen. She is the daughter of the late Mdm Liew Khoon Fong (alias Liew Fong) (“Mdm Liew”) and executrix of Mdm Liew’s will. 2. Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin (“Kelvin”) is Mdm Liew’s son. His wife is Goh Sok Ngoh Jacqueline (“Jacqueline”). Goh Eng Sheng Daniel (“Daniel”) is one of their two sons, The Respondent is Mr Teo Eng Thye. He is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore and was admitted on 19 April 2000. He is, and was at all material times, a director of City Law LLC. The Complainant’s complaints arise from two Powers of Attorney dated 20 November 2017. Both were lodged with the Supreme Court of Singapore as HC/PA 6414/2017 (“POA 6414”) and HC/PA related to the sale of 107 Namly 6417/2017 (“POA Avenue, Singapore 6417”). POA 267676 6414 (the “Namly Property”) and POA 6417 related to the purchase of a condominium unit (the “Condominium Unit”). On 15 January 2018, the Complainant commenced HC/S 45/2018 (“Suit 45”) in her capacity as Mdm Liew’s sole donee under a Lasting Power of Attorney registered on 16 September 2014 (the “2014 LPA”), inter alia, against Kelvin in relation to the sale of Namly Property. On 17 September 2020, the High Court determined that Mdm Liew had lacked the mental capacity to understand and execute the POAs on 20 November 2017 and declared the POAs void. The Respondent was not a party to Suit 45 but gave evidence at the trial of that Suit. THE HEARING AND THE WITNESSES The Disciplinary Tribunal (the “DT”) was constituted on 8 Octob…	2023-06-10T04:00:28+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2023/	In the Matter of Teo Eng Thye (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2023/	c4b7ea526f68d6038a494759578484edc7f944c1	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	2	2	1	1049	In the Matter of Carolyn Tan Beng Hui (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Carolyn Tan Beng Hui (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor On or about 2 May 2017, sale proceeds from the sale of a residential property were deposited with the Respondent’s law firm, Tan & Au LLP (TALLP). The property was registered to Seo Puay Guan (SPG), who was one of seven siblings. The other siblings had alleged that SPG held the property on trust for their late mother, and each claimed an interest in the balance sale proceeds. TALLP filed interpleader proceedings in Originating Summons No. 1100 of 2017 (OS 1100) with the seven siblings as respondents. OS 1100 was fixed for hearing for three days from 12-14 September 2018 before Dedar Singh Gill JC (as he then was) (the JC) where SPG was cross-examined on 12 September 2018 and 13 September 2018. The learned JC asked the counsels to attend in his physical chambers to deal with house-keeping matters. The attendance in chambers concluded shortly after noon on 13 September 2018, and at 1.22pm, TALLP filed SUM 4260 of 2018 in OS 1100 (the Recusal Application) for the learned JC to recuse himself from further hearing the proceedings. The Respondent filed an affidavit in support the next day (the Recusal Affidavit) which contained allegations against other legal practitioners without letting them have the opportunity to respond to the said allegations. The Respondent had also made further statements against the learned JC in the Recusal Affidavit which was disrespectful to the Court. The recusal application was heard on 25 September 2018 before the learned JC and was dismissed. An affidavit opposing the application was filed by the late David Kong who was the solicitor for three of the siblings. The Respondent took umbrage at statements made in David Kong’s affidavit and filed a police report accusing him of perjury. The solicitors for the siblings of SPG jointly made a complaint to the Law Society. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Chuan Thye SC and Mr Chong Yee Leong as DT member to investigate the…	https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/dtr-2023-05.pdf	12th November Annex 1 38 39 40 Annex 2 29 30 31 Annex 3 52 53 54 55 56 58	2023-05-01T04:00:01+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2023/	In the Matter of Carolyn Tan Beng Hui (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2023/	f3de6da006bda9991973e3b102717606008ec92e	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	3	3	1	1049	In the Matter of Ong Lian-Yi Gregory (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Ong Lian-Yi Gregory (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Scarlett Merida Xi Wei Yuan (the Complainant). On or around 27 October 2015, the Complainant was served with a statutory demand for a sum of S$970,547.26 (Statutory Demand) allegedly due to one Ang Boon Kim t/a ABK Leasing (ABKL) under a loan agreement. The Complainant wished to dispute the alleged debt, and met the Respondent on 28 October 2015 and 29 October 2015 respectively to hand him relevant documents and pay a deposit of S$7,000.00 with instructions to file an application to set aside the Statutory Demand (Setting Aside Application). From 1 November 2015 to 4 December 2015, the Complainant and the Respondent exchanged various e-mails and WhatsApp messages wherein the Respondent had provided assurances to the Complainant that there should be no issues with her Setting Aside Application. The Complainant was made a bankrupt on 24 December 2015 and the Complainant terminated the Respondent’s engagement on 18 January 2016. The Respondent returned the deposit of $7,000.00 to the Complainant on 19 January 2016. The bankruptcy order annulled on 27 August 2018 after an application by the Complainant’s new lawyers. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Giam Chin Toon SC and Mr Teo Weng Kie as DT member to investigate the complaint. Three charges (and its alternatives) were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge For grossly improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in that the Respondent had failed to act promptly and diligently on the instructions of the client to set aside the Statutory Demand and/or to apply for an extension of time of the said deadline, in breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (Rules). Second Charge For grossly improper conduct or practice as an advocate and soli…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/dtr-2023-04-c.pdf	IN THE MATTER OF ONG LIAN-YI GREGORY (AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ACT 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Disciplinary Tribunal Mr Giam Chin Toon, SC President Mr Teo Weng Kie Member Counsel for the Law Society Allen & Gledhill LLP Ms Fay Fong 1 Marina Boulevard, #28-00 Singapore 018989 Ref No.: FFONG/dc/1021006176 Counsel for the Respondent K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Mr N. Sreenivasan, SC / Ms Ranita Yogeeswaran 9 Raffles Place #32-00, Republic Plaza Singapore 048619 Ref No.: SN/RY/tm/4901608.00001 Dated this 27th day of June 2022 1 INTRODUCTION THE CHARGES 1. Complainant referred a complaint against Mr Ong Lian- Respondent Law Society October 2020. 2. The Respondent was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 10 June 1992. At all material times, the Respondent practised with the firm of David Ong & Co. 3. Pursuant to the complaint, the Law Society referred the matter to the Inquiry IC investigated by a Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal 4. The Law Society had preferred 3 charges each with an alternative charge against the Respondent when the Tribunal was constituted. These charges are as follows: 1ST CHARGE You, ONG LIAN-YI, GREGORY, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you did act in breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (Cap. 161, No. S 706), to wit, by failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to a client in that despite accepting instructions on or about 28 October 2015, 2 you failed in the period of 28 October 2015 to 18 January 2016 to act promptly and diligently on the instructions of the client to set aside the Statutory Demand which had been served on the client on 27 October 2015 within the time allowed for such an application to be made (i.e. 10 November 2015) and/or to apply for an extension of time of the said deadline, and you have thereby breached a rule of co…	2023-04-08T04:00:51+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-apr-2023/	In the Matter of Ong Lian-Yi Gregory (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-apr-2023/	f7216c8274d9751c92211a7f59ab3be9ceab5116	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	4	4	1	1049	In the Matter of Clarence Lun Yaodong (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Clarence Lun Yaodong (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor The Council of the Law Society referred information relating to the conduct of the Respondent pursuant to section 85(2) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA). Between October 2019 and January 2020, the Respondent offered training contracts to two individuals, one Mr Lim Teng Jie (Mr Lim) and one Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil (Ms Sunil). The Respondent was not, at any material time, qualified to act as a supervising solicitor pursuant to rule 18 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Siraj Omar SC and Mr Tan Jee Ming as DT member to investigate the complaint. Five charges (and its alternatives for the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Charges) were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge (Alternative First Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA), in that the Respondent had failed to ensure Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, who were practice trainees serving their respective practice training periods under separate practice training contracts with Foxwood LLC, were supervised by a supervising solicitor who had in force a practising certificate for a total of not less than five out of seven years immediately preceding the date of the supervision of each of the said practice trainees, in breach of Rule 36(2)(a)(ii) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR). Second Charge (Alternative Second Charge under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) For contravening Rule 18(1)(b) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, by being the supervising solicitor during the practice training periods of Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, who were practice trainees serving their respective practice training periods under separate practice training contracts with Foxwood LLC, while having in force a practising certificate of a period of less than five out o…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/dtr_mar_2023_c.pdf	DT 13 OF 2021 IN THE MATTER OF CLARENCE LUN YAODONG AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Disciplinary Tribunal: Siraj Omar, S.C. – President Tan Jee Ming – Advocate Solicitors for The Law Society of Singapore Solicitors for the Respondent Mr Sarbjit Singh Chopra / Mr Roshan Singh Chopra (Selvam LLC) Mr Mark Seah / Mr Lau Wen Jin (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP) Dated this 22nd day of March 2022 Introduction 1. The Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) brought five charges against Mr Clarence Lun Yaodong (the “Respondent”)1, a solicitor of 8 years’ standing as at the commencement of these proceedings in 2021. 2. The Respondent admits that he had purported to act as the supervising solicitor for two individuals, Mr Lim Teng Jie (“Mr Lim”) and Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil (“Ms Sunil”), at different periods during their practice training at Foxwood LLC between October 2019 and January 2020.2 The Respondent admits that he was not qualified to act as a supervising solicitor during the material time3 and the fact that he purported to do so is a clear breach of Rule 18(1) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 (the “Admission Rules”). The charges levied against him in these proceedings arise from those breaches as well as events which are alleged to have occurred after those breaches were discovered. 3. Having carefully considered the facts of the case, the evidence of the witnesses and the parties’ respective submissions, we find that: (a) Cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists: (i) under Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2009) (the “Act”) in respect of the First Charge (as defined below); 1 2 3 The Law Society’s Closing Submissions (“LSCS”) [31]. The Respondent’s Closing Submissions (“RCS”) [1]. RCS [1]. 1 (ii) under Section 83(2)(j) of the Act in respect of the Second Charge (as defined below); and (iii) under Section 83(2)(h) of the Act in respect of the Alterna…	2023-03-08T04:00:32+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-mar-2023/	In the Matter of Clarence Lun Yaodong (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-mar-2023/	5315e08823d5b73054ee764151cf88b78a774fa3	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	5	5	1	1049	In the Matter of CNH (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of CNH (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of information referred by the Attorney-General to the Law Society on the Respondent’s conduct. The Respondent pleaded guilty to, and was duly convicted of the following: Section 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (PC) for intending to insult the modesty of a 23-year-old woman (Victim), and intruding upon her privacy, by using his handphone to take photographs of her chest and brassiere without her consent; and Section 509 of the PC for intending to insult the modesty of the Victim, and intruding upon her privacy, by using his handphone to take photographs of her panties without her consent. The Respondent had also consented to the following to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing: Section 509 of the PC for intending to insult the modesty of the Victim, and intruding upon her privacy, by using his handphone to take photographs of her panties without her consent; and Section 354(1) of the PC for using criminal force on the Victim, by pressing his thigh against her upper arm, knowing it is likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty. The Respondent was sentenced to a total of four weeks’ imprisonment by the State Courts. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Ms Kuah Boon Theng SC and Mr Philip Ling as DT member. Two charges (Charges) were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in that the Respondent had intentionally used his handphone to take photographs of the chest and brasserie of the Victim, who was his colleague in the law firm, without her consent. 2nd Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section…			2023-02-01T02:00:22+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2023/	In the Matter of CNH (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2023/	ce92c3eb59011857291835e68d286083bc6c5abb	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	6	6	1	1049	In the Matter of Sarindar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Sarindar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Jain Alka @ Alka Salecha (the Complainant). The Complainant and her husband, one Mr Padam Kumar Jawerilal Salecha, were shareholders and directors of Swina International Pte Ltd (Swina) at all material times. Swina engaged the Respondent to negotiate with Swina’s creditor banks in relation to outstanding loans of around S$16 million. The Complainant and her husband also engaged the Respondent also attend to the bankruptcy proceedings taken out against them on account they being guarantors of the loans taken out by Swina. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Roderick E Martin SC and Mdm Tan Gee Tuan as DT member. One charge and two alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent: Charges 1st Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) in that the Respondent failed to provide advice to his clients, in relation to the legal proceedings commenced against them, in breach of Rule 5(2)(h) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR). 1st Alternative Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in that the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of legal services to his clients by failing to advise his clients in relation to the legal proceedings that had been commenced against them, in breach of Rule 5(2)(c) of the PCR. 2nd Alternative Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in that the Respondent faile…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/dtr_jan_2023-compressed.pdf	17th BACKGROUND FACTS. ‘The Complainant in these disciplinary proceedings is one Ms Jain Alka @ Alka Salecha (the “Complainant. The Complainant and her husband, Mr Padam Kumar Jawerlal Salecha, were at all material times the shareholders and directors of Swina International Pte Ltd ('Swina’), ‘Tne Respondent is Mr Sarindar Singh, an Advocate and Solicitorof the Supreme Court of Singapore, of 22 years’ standing (the “Respondent’). At all material times, the Respondent was the sole proprietor of Mis Singh & Co, ‘The Respondent was engaged by Swina to negotiate with Swina’s creditor banks In relation to outstanding loans of around SGD 16 million. The Respondent was also engaged by the Complainant and her husband, being personal guarantors of the loans taken out by Swina, for the same purpose The Respondent wrote to the banks proposing repayment plans, but those proposals were rejected Consequently, on 11 December 2017, Swina was served by Maybank with the winding up papers in HCICWU 247/2017 at its office and on 12 December 2017, the Complainant and her husband were personally served with the bankruptey papers in HC/B 2785/2017 and HC/B 2783/2017 respectively at their residence. The bankruptcy and winding up applications were heard and granted on 11 January 2018 and 12 January 2018 respectively (On 9 May 2019, the Complainant lodged a complaint against the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had breached his duties under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules by- (2) falling o act with honesty, competence and dligence; (b) disclosing information without the Claimant's instructions; and (c) grossly overcharging for the work done" 9. The complaint was referred to an IC, which took the unanimous view that all three heads of complaint disclosed no necessity for a formal investigation by @ Disciplinary Tribunal? 10, Boing dissatisfied with the IC's decision that there was no prima facie case for referral tothe DT, the Complainant took out an application vide HC/OS 41/2024 (COS 41°) for an order to c…	2023-01-10T04:00:00+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jan-2023/	In the Matter of Sarindar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jan-2023/	0c1312bea41be63c83d5708823498b6111b7122c	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	7	7	1	1049	In the Matter of Seow Theng Beng Samuel (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Seow Theng Beng Samuel (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose from information referred by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore (Law Society) in relation to the conduct of the Respondent, which stemmed from the following circumstances: The initial lodging of a complaint against the Respondent by a former employee of the Respondent’s firm, Samuel Seow Law Corporation, who subsequently withdrew the complaint; and The publication of media reports on the Respondent’s abusive behaviour towards his employees; Upon the application of Council, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), presided by Mr Siraj Omar SC, and Mr Pradeep Pillai, as DT member. Charges Eight (8) principal charges were preferred against the Respondent with alternative charges pursuant to section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) (collectively, the Charges). After the hearing had commenced, the Respondent pleaded guilty to all of the Charges and Alternative Charges preferred against him. 1st Charge (Charge 1) For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by throwing files and boxes on the floor in her direction, screaming at her, and verbally abusing her. 2nd Charge (Charge 2) For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent conducted himself in an intemperate and boorish manner towards his employee by throwing a metal stapler on the floor in her direction on 26 March 2018. 3rd Charge (Charge 3) For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA through a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR, in that the Respondent conducted …	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/dtr_dec_22.pdf	DT 5 OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF SEOW THENG BENG SAMUEL AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (CHAPTER 161) REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Disciplinary Tribunal: Siraj Omar, S.C. - President Pradeep Pillai - Advocate Solicitor for The Law Society of Singapore Solicitors for the Respondent Mr Dinesh Dhillon / Mr Leong Tse Chuan / Ms Alisa Toh Qian Wen (Allen & Gledhill LLP) Mr Eugene Thuraisingam / Mr Chooi Jing Yen/ Mr Johannes Hadi (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) ,Jl Dated this JO day of March 2020 .' INTRODUCTION 1. The Law Society of Singapore (the "Law Society") brought eight charges against Mr Seow Theng Seng Samuel (the "Respondent"). The specific charge·s were amended several times, and (as we describe below) the Respondent eventually pleaded guilty to each of the charges framed against him. 2. Having carefully considered the facts of the case and the parties' respective submissions, we find that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists: (a) under Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 160, the "Act") in respect of each of the Charges (as defined below); and (b) under Section 83(2)(h) of the Act in respect of each of the Alternative Charges (as defined below). 3. We set out our grounds below. THE CHARGES 4. The Law Society framed eight charges against the Respondent ( collectively, the "Charges"), alleging that the conduct set out in each of these charges amounted to "improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor" within the meaning of · Section 83(2)(b) of the Act. 1 1 The Law Society's Statement of Case (Amendment No. 3) (the "SOC"), at [21). 1 .. 5. The Law Society also framed alternative charges (collectively, the "Alternative Charges") in respect of each of the Charges, asserting (in the alternative) that the conduct described in each of the Charges also amounted to "misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession" within …	2022-12-05T02:00:23+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2022/	In the Matter of Seow Theng Beng Samuel (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2022/	96faa9526ca05e5cb0b3609b8c922d94f36a4e6f	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	8	8	1	1049	In the Matter of Yeo Poh Tiang [Yang Baozhen] (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Yeo Poh Tiang [Yang Baozhen] (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint lodged by one Mdm Koh Hwee Miem (Complainant). On 12 February 2020, the Complainant paid Yeo & Associates LLC (the Firm) a sum of fees to utilise the services offered on an online portal developed by the Respondent to facilitate and expedite uncontested divorces (the Portal). On 5 March 2020, the Complainant requested for a full refund of fees paid as there had been no communication with either the Firm or the Respondent following the payment made on 12 February 2020. The Firm rejected the Complainant’s request on the following grounds: Payment made was non-refundable; and Payment was considered “fully utilised” upon access to the Portal pages. In the absence of an amicable resolution, the Complainant lodged a complaint against the Respondent by way of a letter to the Law Society of Singapore (the Law Society). Upon the application of Council, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Andre Yeap SC and Mr Anand Nalachandran as DT member. Charges Two (2) charges and two (2) alternative charges (collectively, the Charges) were preferred against the Respondent. First Charge For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA), in which the Respondent breached Rule 17(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), having failed to inform the Complainant that the fees paid were charged on a non-refundable basis. Alternative First Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, in that the Respondent failed to inform the Complainant that fees paid were charged on a non-refundable basis. Second Charge For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the LPA, in …	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/dtr_nov_22.pdf	1 DTlr5l202l In the Matter of Yeo Poh Tiang (Yang Baozhen) an Advocate & Solicitor And In the Matter of the Legal Profession Act 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCPLINARY TRIBUNAL DISCPLINARY TRIBUNAL PRESIDENT: ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR: MR ANDRE YEAP, SC MR ANAND NALACHANDRAN COUNSEL FOR LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE: MS. SHUMIN LIN/ MR BENJAMIN TAN ZHI XIONG COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: MR N. SREENIVASAN S.C./ MS RANITA YOGEESWARAN DATED THIS 4th DAY OF MAY 2022 -2Introduction The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in exercise of his powers under Section 90 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 ("LPA") appointed the Disciplinary Tribunal ("Tribunal") on 5 July 2021to hear and investigate the matter against Ms Yeo Poh Tiang ("Respondent") and submit its findings to the Chief Justice. 2 The Respondent is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court who was admitted to the roll on 12 July 2006. a J These disciplinary proceedings arise from a complaint by Mdm Koh Hwee Miem ("Complainant") against the Respondent, who was at all material times the Managing Director of Yeo & Associates LLC ("Firm"). 4 By a Notice of Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings dated 7 July 2021, the Respondent was informed that Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings have been commenced against her and she was required to answer the allegations in the complaint and the statement of case which accompanied the said Notice. 5 The Law Society of Singapore ("Law Society") was represented by Shumin Lin from M/s Drew & Napier LLC whilst the Respondent was represented by N. Sreenivasan SC, and Ranita Yogeeswaran from M/s Straits Law Practice LLC. Procedural History 6 These proceedings involve 2 charges for breaches of Rule 17(3) as well as Rule 5(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 ("Rules"), which amount to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under Section 83(2Xb) of the LPA, with 2 altemative charges for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor under Section S3(2)(h) of the LPA. In essenc…	2022-11-08T04:00:17+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-nov-2022/	In the Matter of Yeo Poh Tiang [Yang Baozhen] (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-nov-2022/	51cb08cb90d80f7f0832944c242a0267133b67e0	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	9	9	1	1049	In the Matter of Ooi Oon Tat (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Ooi Oon Tat (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Mr Lim See Meng (the Complainant). The Complainant was a taxi driver who was involved in an accident with one Mr Chong Chun Siong (Mr Chong). The Complainant suffered some physical injuries. The Complainant, through his then solicitor, commenced DC Suit 2679/2015 (the Suit). The Respondent formally took over conduct of the Suit on 2 May 2016. United Legal Alliance LLC (ULA) represented Mr Chong. ULA wrote to the Respondent on 15 June 2016, and had requested for certain documents in relation to the Complainant’s case (Discovery Request). About two weeks later, the Complainant went to the Respondent’s office, and provided some documents to enable the Respondent to reply in part to the Discovery Request. On 30 June 2016, the Complainant sent a reminder to the Respondent via e-mail to respond to the Discovery Request. As the Complainant did not receive any update from the Respondent, he engaged a different solicitor in January 2017, who did a search of the Court’s file and informed the Complainant that the Suit was struck out. The Complainant’s claim for personal injury, if commenced in a fresh suit at the time it was struck out on 20 January 2017, would have potentially been time-barred. The Complainant eventually commenced civil proceedings against the Respondent for professional negligence, and the Respondent was found liable to pay the Complainant’s costs and disbursements, as well as $72,879.03 in damages. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Jimmy Yim Wing Kuen, SC and Mr Andrew Chan Chee Yin as DT member. Three charges (and its alternatives) were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in that whilst acting for the Complainant in the Suit, …	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Oct_22_DT_Ooi_Oon_Tat.pdf	DT 10 OF 2021 IN THE MATTER OF OOI OON TAT, AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (CHAPTER 161) DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Disciplinary Tribunal Mr Jimmy Yim Wing Kuen, SC President Mr Andrew Chan Chee Yin Member Counsel for the Law Society Counsel for the Respondent Mr Adrian Wong Soon Peng Mr Wayne Yeo (Yang Weien) Respondent acting in person Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP 9 Straits View #06-07 Marine One West Tower Singapore 018937 Dated this 20th day of December 2021 DT 10/2021 Between THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE (No ID Exists) And OOI OON TAT Introduction 1. On 18 June 2020, Mr Lim See Meng Mr Lim a taxi driver lodged his complaint1 against his former solicitor Mr Ooi Oon Tat the Respondent practising as a sole proprietor under the law firm name of M/s Judy Cheng & Co J&C . The Respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of some 27 years standing at the material time in 2016, having been called to the Singapore Bar in August 1989.2 2. On 10 May 2021, the present Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed. The Law Society of LSS 3 charges against the Respondent. The 3 charges are reproduced below:3 1 2PB at p. 818 2 Statement of Case dated 29 April 2021 at [1] 3 The First Charge was amended by consent on the day of the oral closing submissions on 1 November 2021 by 2 First Charge [The Respondent is] charged that whilst acting for [Mr Lim] in DC Suit No. 2679 of 2015 ( the Suit ), [he was] aware of information that would reasonably affect interests in the Suit, which included:(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The letter fr 17 August 2016; DC/SUM 2793/2016 dated 29 August 2016; DC/ORC 3529/2016 dated 4 October 2016; The letter from ULA to J&C dated 31 October 2016; DC/SUM 3586/2016 dated 8 November 2016; DC/ORC 94/2017 dated 13 December 2016; and/or That the Suit was struck out on 20 January 2017, but failed to reasonably inform [Mr Lim] of such information and/or the progress of the Suit in breach of Rule 5(2)(b) and/or …	2022-10-08T04:00:58+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2022/	In the Matter of Ooi Oon Tat (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2022/	6d7bc1105dd186a9a11c94298998628732fd5a3e	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	10	10	1	1049	In the Matter of Mohammad Nizam Bin Ismail (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Mohammad Nizam Bin Ismail (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint filed by RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP (now known as RHTLaw Asia LLP), a limited liability partnership (RHTLaw or Complainant). The Respondent was a partner with RHTLaw at the material time. The complaint was that the Respondent had practised as a solicitor on his own account while being a partner with RHTLaw. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Dr Michael Hwang SC and Mr Mr Teo Weng Kie as DT member. Charges One main charge, with an alternative charge, was preferred against the Respondent. The Respondent pleaded guilty to the main charge. The Charge was: Charge For contravening a provision of the Legal Profession Act (Cap.161, 2009 Rev Ed) (the Act) which warranted disciplinary action under section 83(2)(j) of the Act, namely section 142(3)(d) of the Act, as the Respondent practised as a solicitor on his own account while a partner of a limited liability law partnership, in that he had, between 2016 to 2019, did agree to/or did act as a legal advisor and render legal services on his own account to six named clients. Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The DT was of the view that there was neither available evidence nor suggestion that the Respondent had behaved with dishonesty or lacked the trustworthiness expected of an advocate and solicitor. There was also neither evidence nor suggestion that the Respondent had caused material harm to any of the clients. However, the DT observed that the quantum of remuneration that the Respondent received was not insignificant (approximate value of $50,000), and that the Respondent’s conduct did infringe on the objective of protecting the public in a situation whereby a solicitor practises without insurance coverage. The DT was of the view that the main charge was made out, though there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of th…	https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/Mohammad+Nizam+DT+report.pdf	16th 16th	2022-09-10T04:00:11+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-sep-2022/	In the Matter of Mohammad Nizam Bin Ismail (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-sep-2022/	3ba82597a71332da641f57de12d9150c9bbe0df3	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	11	11	1	1049	In the Matter of Tan Teik Yu Mark (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Tan Teik Yu Mark (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev. Ed.) (LPA) whereby the Respondent had pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of five charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (MDA). The Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 21 months with effect from 19 October 2020. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Tee Jim SC and Mrs Christine Sekhon as DT member. Charges Five (5) Charges were preferred against the Respondent and pleaded guilty to, with the second, third and fourth Charges being proceeded with, and the remaining charges being taken into consideration: First Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in that the Respondent had, on 17 March 2018, in his possession a Class C Controlled Drug nimetazepam without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 8(a) of the MDA. Second Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in that the Respondent had, on 17 March 2018, in his possession a Class A Controlled Drug methamphetamine without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, for which the Respondent was convicted on 12 October 2020, under section 8(a) of the MDA. Third Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in that the Respondent had, on or before 17 March 2018, consumed a Class A Controlled Drug methamphe…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DT_Report_Mark_Tan.pdf	DT/22/2021 IN THE MATTER OF TAN TEIK YU MARK AN ADVOCATE & SOLICTOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev. Ed.) Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal Disciplinary Tribunal President: Mr. Tan Tee Jim, SC Advocate & Solicitor: Mrs Christine Sekhon Mr. S Suressh and Mr Marcus Ng (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for the Law Society Mr. Nicholas Narayanan (Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP) for the Respondent Introduction 1. This case arose from a request by the Attorney-General to the Law Society to refer to a Disciplinary Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) a matter concerning the conduct of Tan Teik Yu Mark (“Respondent”). The request was made pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev. Ed.) (“LPA”). 2s The Respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He was called to the Bar on 28 May 2005. He is currently practising at Mark Tan LLC. Law Society’s Case 3: The Law Society submitted a Statement of Case. In it, it set out the following facts and charges: (1) On 12 October 2020, the Respondent was convicted in the State Courts of Singapore of the following charges which he had earlier pleaded guilty to: - (a) On 17 March 2018 at about 10:45 pm at 21 Woodlands Crossing, Woodlands Checkpoint, Car Arrival Green Channel Counter Respondent had in his possession nimetazepam, 18, Singapore, the a Class C Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”) without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and had thereby committed an offence under section 8(a) punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA (“First Criminal Charge’). (b) On 17 March 2018 at about 10:45 pm at 21 Woodlands Crossing, Woodlands Checkpoint, Car Arrival Green Channel Counter 18, Singapore, the Respondent had in his possession 2 packets of crystalline substance which were analysed and found to contain not less than 8.78 grams of methamphetamine, a Class A Controlled Drug listed in t…	2022-07-09T02:00:31+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2022/	In the Matter of Tan Teik Yu Mark (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2022/	c72a69dccd1de2130654dd8f00aeadf3d2f4a7e6	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	12	12	1	1049	In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Ms Wong Siew Lan (the Complainant). The Complainant was an employee and shareholder of a company, which operated a wanton mee stall (the Company). The Company’s cash takings were deposited into the Company’s bank account. The Complainant and the two other shareholders of the Company (Two Shareholders) got into a dispute over cheques issued from the Company’s bank account without the knowledge or consent of the Complainant. The Complainant then stopped depositing the Company’s cash takings into the Company’s bank account. The Respondent was engaged to represent the Two Shareholders in this dispute. On 28 February 2017, the Complainant’s solicitors proposed a settlement on behalf of the Complainant which included a term that they would pay the cash takings amounting to the sum of $26,896.45 by way of a cashier’s order in favour of the Company (the Cashier’s Order). The parties agreed to hand the Cashier’s Order over to the Respondent subject to an undertaking that she would not release the Cashier’s Order to her clients, the Two Shareholders, until a comprehensive agreement was reached by the parties in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them (the Undertaking). On 30 March 2017, the Respondent stated by way of letter that she would not release the Cashier’s Order to her clients. On 24 April 2017, the Two Shareholders commenced legal proceedings against the Complainant, and the Complainant, through her solicitors, asked for the return of the Cashier’s Order given that the Two Shareholders commenced legal proceedings. The Respondent stated that she had held the Cashier’s Order until 18 April 2017 and the Cashier’s Order was then deposited by the Two Shareholders into the Company’s bank account to pay for the Company’s overheads. The above release of the Cashier’s Order by the Respondent to her clients when there was no comprehensive agreement r…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DT_Report_Priyalatha_Naidu_1.pdf	1 October 2021 DT/1/2021 Between THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE Applicant And NAIDU PRIYALATHA ..-Respondent THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL’S DECISION 4. Ms Wong Siew Lan (the Complainant”) lodged a complaint against the Respondent with the Law Society on 29 November 2019, on the ground that the Respondent had breached an undertaking given by her (“the Complaint”). 2. The Respondent is a senior member advocate and solicitor of the Supreme of the profession: she was admitted as an Court of Singapore on 8 October 1980, and at the material time, was a sole proprietor of the firm Messrs P. Naidu. 3 As a consequence of the Complaint, the Law Society brought the following charges against the Respondent: Charge That you, Naidu Priyalatha, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of 2 the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) to wit, that, on 18 April 2017, despite having given your solicitor's undertaking not to release a cashier's order for the sum of $26,896.45 made in favour of Balestier Hui Kee Pte Ltd to your clients (Ng Kar Kui and Chang had been reached between Lien Siang) until a comprehensive your clients, and Wong agreement Siew Lan and Seah Sai Hong, in full and final settlement of all issues and claims between them, you in breach of your solicitor's undertaking released the said cashier's order to your clients when no such agreement had been reached between your clients, and Wong Siew Lan and Seah Sai Hong. Alternative Charge That you, Naidu Priyalatha, are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and or as solicitor as an officer honourable profession Profession Act (Chapter of the Supreme within the meaning Court of section a member of an 83(2){h) of the Legal 161) in that you, on 18 April 2017, despite having given your solicitor’s undertaking not to release a cashier's order for the sum of $26,896.45 made in favour of Balestier Hui Kee Pte Ltd to your clien…	2022-07-09T02:00:31+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2022/	In the Matter of Naidu Priyalatha (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2022/	af78125759e10cf1382af1411ef33bca11108573	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	13	13	1	1049	In the Matter of Zheng Shengyang Harry (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Zheng Shengyang Harry (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint lodged by one Lee Kuan Fung (Complainant). The complaint pertained to the Respondent’s conduct in which the Respondent’s law firm, Ark Law Corporation, had issued a letter of demand to the Complainant and one Chua Chim Kang, and the Respondent had caused the said letter of demand to be openly posted on a wall beside the main door of the Complainant’s flat in plain view of the public on 9 October 2020. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a DT presided by Mr Narayanan Sreenivasan SC and Mr Seah Seow Kang Steven as DT member. Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession under Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the Respondent had caused a letter of demand, addressed to the Complainant and another, which was prepared for his client, to be openly posted on 9 October 2020 at 7.37pm, on a wall beside the main door of Lee’s flat in plain view of the public without an envelope, when the Respondent knew or ought to have known that there was no necessity or legal basis to do so, in a way which is contrary to the Respondent’s position as a member of an honourable profession in breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR). Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found the Respondent guilty of the Charge. The DT was of the view that the interpretation of the phrase “contrary to the legal practitioner’s position as a member of an honourable profession” in Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR did not require a finding of culpability akin to fraud or deceit, as it would be inconsistent with the guiding principles in Rule 4 of the PCR and the specific guiding principles in Rule 8(1) of the PCR. Further, the DT, in its analysis of whether the actions of an advocate and solicitor should be viewed objectively or wheth…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DT_Report_PDF_Harry_Zheng_Jun2022.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DT/17/2021 In the Matter of ZHENG SHENGYANG, HARRY (NRIC No: SXXXX809G) an Advocate & Solicitor And In the Matter (Chapter 161) of the Legal Profession Act REPORT PRESIDENT: MR NARAYANAN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR: MR SEAH SEOW KANG STEVEN MS KOH EN YING MS GLORIA TAN FOR THE LAW SOCIETY MR SARBJIT SINGH CHOPRA MR ROSHAN SINGH CHOPRA FOR THE RESPONENT Dated this 19 day of Jan 2022 SREENIVASAN SC Introduction 1. This Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed on 3 August 2021. The Respondent solicitor is Zheng Shengyang, Harry (NRIC No. SXXXX809G) (the “Respondent’), an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He was called to the Singapore Bar in 2015." 2. The primary facts in this matter are not in dispute. We must commend both counsel for the Law Society and counsel for the Respondent for the focussed, concise and fair manner in which they conducted their respective cases. This has greatly assisted us in dealing with the issues in this case. Background 3. Facts to the Complaint The complainant, Lee Kuan Fung (the “Complainant’), is an individual resident in a Housing Development Board flat at 18 Joo Seng Road, #08- 159, Singapore 360018 (the “Complainant's Flat’). 4. On or about Corporation, 7 October 2020, the Respondent’s law firm, Ark Law issued a letter (the “7 October Letter’) to the Complainant and Chua Chim Kang.° The 7 October Letter contained: (1) the Complainant’s name and address; (2) Chua Chim Kang’s name and address; and 1 Statement of Case at [1] and Defence (Amendment No. 1) at [2] 2 Statement of Case at [2] and Defence (Amendment No. 1) at [3] 3 Statement of Case at [3] and Defence (Amendment No. 1) at [5] 2 (3) information relating to the company known as Homing Holdings Pte Ltd (a company ostensibly incorporated for the purposes of a joint venture Chua between Chim the Kang), Respondent’s and client, the Complainant the dispute between the and Respondent’s client, the Complainan…	2022-06-08T04:00:09+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2022/	In the Matter of Zheng Shengyang Harry (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2022/	fbe13d5c079fd2737c72f0744793e9ef3fe1c55c	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	14	14	1	1049	In the Matter of Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Victor Lim in relation to events that occurred on 26 March 2014 that resulted in Victor Lim signing a Declaration of Trust (DOT). The DOT was ultimately set aside by the High Court after Victor Lim brought an action for the same. Following the findings or remarks of the High Court in BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 (BOK v BOL), Victor Lim lodged a complaint against the Respondent. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Roderick E Martin SC and Mr Chan Hock Keng as DT member. Charges Three main charges were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA), and a breach of Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), in which the Respondent had aided the misrepresentation of his daughter, Calista Marella Peter, to her then husband, Victor Lim, in that the Deed of Trust would only take effect upon his death, until which time he was free to deal with his assets, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court. Second Charge For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, and a breach of Rule 53A of the PCR, in which the Respondent had exerted undue influence upon Victor Lim or aided Calista Marella Peter to exert undue influence upon Victor Lim, thereby inducing Victor Lim into signing the Deed of Trust, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court. Third Charge For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the L…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DT-law_gazette.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DT/12/2020 In the Matter of Gabriel Peter An Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court And In the Matter of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) ___________________________________________________________________ REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ President: Mr Roderick E Martin SC Advocate & Solicitor: Mr Chan Hock Keng Mr Wee Heng Yi Adrian, Mr Darius Lee, Ms Lynette Chang (Characterist LLP) for the Law Society Mr Gabriel Peter, Ms Nicolette Tan, Ms Perveen Kaur (Gabriel Law Corporation) for the Respondent Dated this 20th day of February 2022 2 I. BACKGROUND FACTS 1. The facts leading to the complaint Peter are narrated at [1] to [6 DT 2 and DT 2A/2020 DT 2A . DT 2 arises from a complaint by the Attorney General against Calista Peter Calista lodged by arises from a similar complaint being Victor -in- law. This Report deals with the complaint against Peter in DT 12/2020. 2. The complaint against Peter was lodged by Victor in relation to events that occurred on 26 March 2014 that resulted in Victor signing a Declaration of Trust DOT 3. The DOT was ultimately set aside by the High Court after Victor brought an action to court for the same. Following the findings or remarks of the High Court from [59] to [65] in BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 BOK v BOL , Victor lodged his complaint against Peter resulting in DT 12. II. THE CHARGES IN DT 12 4. The same Tribunal in DT 2 and 2A was appointed to hear the complaint against Peter in DT 12. In DT 12, the following charges were preferred against Peter, which in their amended form reads as follows: 3 FIRST CHARGE You, Gabriel Peter, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or about 26 March 2014, you: aided the misrepresentation of your daughter, Calista Marella Peter, to her then husband, Lim Wei De Victor, that the Deed of Trust would only take effect upon his death, until which time he was free to deal with his assets, which were acts th…	2022-04-08T04:00:27+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2022/	In the Matter of Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2022/	3ef69ea966bbde7e693b21bc3d2ab11dd5d67292	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	15	15	1	1049	In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Lim Beng Heng Bernard (Complainant). The Complainant had engaged the Respondent to make a claim for personal injuries that he sustained in a road traffic accident on 28 September 2017. The Respondent had issued a letter of demand to India International Insurance Pte Ltd (III Pte Ltd), the insurers of the motor vehicle that was involved in the road traffic accident. Proposals were exchanged between the Respondent and III Pte Ltd. However, it was alleged that the Respondent had failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed of the progress of his matter by failing to inform the Complainant when she negotiated a higher global settlement sum with III Pte Ltd and by failing to explain the breakdown of the settlement sum. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Andre Yeap SC and Mr G Radakrishnan as DT member. Charges One main charge and two alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent: Charge For the improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in which the Respondent had breached Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) in that she renegotiated and accepted a higher global settlement sum for the Complainant without informing or obtaining his authorization for the same after he had instructed her to accept the offer of a lower sum and she purported to keep the difference as her fee without the Complainant’s authorisation or instruction. Alternative 1st Charge For misconduct unbefitting of 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 LPA in that she renegotiated and accepted a higher global settlement sum for the Complainant without informing or obtaining his au…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/DT-Report-18-86.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DT/11/2019 In the Matter of CONSTANCE MARGREAT PAGLAR (NRIC NO. SXXXX694J) an Advocate & Solicitor And In the Matter of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) REPORT TRIBUNAL MEMBERS PRESIDENT: MR ANDRE YEAP, SC ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR: MR G. RADAKRISHNAN PARTIES COUNSEL FOR LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE: MR. SHASHI NATHAN/MISS J JAYALETCHUMI COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: MR. K ANPARASAN/MISS AUDREY WONG DATED THIS 12th DAY OF MAY 2020 -1- INTRODUCTION 1. Constance Margreat Paglar (“Respondent”) was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 21 March 1998 and was, at all material times, the sole proprietor of C Paglar & Co (“CPC”). 2. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made by way of a letter dated 7 August 2018 against the Respondent by one Lim Beng Heng Bernard (“Complainant”). 3. In the Statement of Case filed by the Law Society against the Respondent dated 5 November 2019, the original charges preferred were as follows: i) The main charge was that the Respondent was guilty of a breach of rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (“PCR“) in that she renegotiated and accepted a higher global settlement sum for the Complainant without informing or obtaining his authorization for the same after he had instructed her to accept the offer of a lower sum and she purported to keep the difference as her fee without the Complainant’s authorization or instruction and this breach of Rule 5(2)(a) amounted to improper conduct or practice within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (“LPA”). ii) The first alternative charge was that the same conduct as in the main charge also amounted to misconduct unbefitting of 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 LPA. iii) The second alternative charge was that the Respondent was guilty of a breach of Rule 17 of t…	2021-12-06T04:00:45+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2021/	In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2021/	d1db5d701a951e85ceec58e1acb156aa8ad52a29	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	16	16	1	1049	In the Matter of Huang Lui (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Huang Lui (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint made by Mdm Lim Lay Choo, Mdm Lim Lay Pheng and Mr Lim Teck Guan (the Complainants) against Mdm Huang Lui. The Complainants were amongst the nine beneficiaries to the Estate of Mdm Tan Bee Eng, who was the Complainants’ mother. Mdm Lim Lay Choo and one Mr Lim Teck Seng, another beneficiary to the Estate, were named as Joint Executors of the Estate pursuant to the will. The Complaint alleged that the Respondent had grossly overcharged them for the probate matter, had failed to provide full particulars or details of the work done despite repeated requests and queries, had refused to respond to repeated requests to tax her bill and had delayed providing the breakdown of her bill for nine months. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Cavinder Bull SC and Mr Ian Lim as DT member. Charges One main charge and one alternative charge were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge For committing an act amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty as an advocate and solicitor in breach of Rule 17(3)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, contrary to section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act for failing to inform or sufficiently inform her clients of the basis on which her professional services will be charged. Alternative 1st Charge For committing an act of misconduct unbefitting of 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 in which she had failed to inform, or sufficiently inform, her clients of the basis on which her professional services will be charged, in breach of Rule 17(3)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015. Amendment of Charge and Findings and Determination of the DT The 1st Charge, which the Respondent subsequently pleaded guilty to, was …	https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/DT_Rept_(19-55)_-_Huang_Lui.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SECRETARIAT 1 SUPREME COURT LANE, SINGAPORE 178879 TEL: 6332 4040, 6332 4060, FAX: 6332 4061 DT/SEC/11/2020 24 February 2021 BY EMAIL Director, Conduct Department The Law Society of Singapore 28 Maxwell Road #01-03 Maxwell Chambers Suite Singapore 069120 Dear Sir PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF HUANG LUI AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR Pursuant to section 93(4)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), I submit a copy of the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of Madam Huang Lui. Yours faithfully EDWIN SAN SECRETARY DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL C:DT/11/2020.(18D) - ES/PT/AC The Law Society of Singapore v Huang Lui Case Number : DT 11/2020 Decision Date : 24 February 2021 Tribunal / Court : Disciplinary Tribunal Coram : Cavinder Bull, S.C.; Ian Lim Counsel Name(s) : Leong Kah Wah and Alyssa Leong for the Law Society of Singapore; Chelva R. Rajah SC (Tan Rajah & Cheah LLC) for the Respondent Introduction 1 These disciplinary proceedings arise from a complaint made by Mdm Lim Lay Choo, Mdm Lim Lay Pheng and Mr Lim Teck Guan (“the Complainants”) against Mdm Huang Lui (“the Respondent”). The Respondent is a practicing advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore who was admitted to the roll on 14 February 1968. At the material time, she was practicing at M/s Wee Swee Teow LLP. 2 The charge against the Respondent is that in breach of Rule 17(3)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (the “Rules”), she failed to inform or sufficiently inform her clients of the basis on which fees for professional services will be charged, and she has thereby committed an act amounting to improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty as an The Law Society of Singapore v Huang Lui advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, contrary to Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the “LPA”).1 3 The Respondent pleads guilty to the charge preferred against her by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law…	2021-10-06T06:00:51+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/	In the Matter of Huang Lui (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/	16d612fb99ad10388341d484b610c11d18262c27	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	17	17	1	1049	In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor These proceedings arose from information referred by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the LPA and as such Council is required to refer the matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) for formal investigation. The complaint pertained to the Respondent’s conduct in relation to Originating Summons (Adoption) No. 355 of 2014 and his subsequent correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empaneled a DT presided by Ms Molly Lim SC and Mr Teo Weng Kie as DT member. Charges Three main and alternative charges were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge For improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) (Cap 161, S 706/2015) regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to assist in the administration of justice were breached due to the Respondent providing copies of the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings without having obtained the court’s permission to do so, thus breaching Rule 671 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR) (No 27 of 2014, S 813/2014). Alternative 1st Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in which the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the PCR regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to assist in the administration of justice were breached due to the Respondent providing copies of the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017, issued by District Judge Shobha G Nair, to persons who were not party to the proceedings without having obtained the Court’s permission to do so, thus breaching Rule 671 of the FJR. 2nd Charge…	https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/DT_Report_Koh_Tien_Hua.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SECRETARIAT 1 SUPREME COURT LANE, SINGAPORE 178879 TEL: 6332 4040, 6332 4060, FAX: 6332 4061 DT/SEC/13/2019 28 May 2020 BY EMAIL Director, Conduct Department The Law Society of Singapore 28 Maxwell Road #01-03 Maxwell Chambers Suite Singapore 069120 Dear Sir PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF KOH TIEN HUA AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR Pursuant to section 93(4)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), I submit a copy of the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of Mr Koh Tien Hua. Yours faithfully EDWIN SAN SECRETARY DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL C:DT/13/2019.(18D) - ES/AC 28th May 28th May	2021-10-06T06:00:51+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/	In the Matter of Koh Tien Hua (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/	a93b79b369ffe50dd19a9d28cd1430016e5ca045	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	18	18	1	1049	In the Matter of Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint made by one Mr Tan Ng Kuang (Mr Tan) and one Ms Lim Siew Soo (Ms Lim) (jointly, the Complainants), who were insolvency practitioners with nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (nTan), against the Respondent as well as one Mr Jai Swarup Pathak (Mr Pathak) of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Gibson Dunn). The complaint stemmed from the circumstances leading to and following the Complainants’ appointment as judicial managers (JMs) of Punj Lloyd Pte Ltd (PLPL) and Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (SEC) (jointly, the Companies). The complaint was that the Complainants had agreed with PLL, through the Respondent and Mr Pathak (who were acting for PLL), to be appointed the JMs for the Companies on condition that PLL would make a cash deposit of $2 million, either with nTan or Gibson Dunn, in escrow. The Complainants’ judicial management fees, billed at an hourly rate, would be paid out of the said cash deposit and that Gibson Dunn had received and held $500,000 as part of the said deposit for the JMs’ fees. The Complainants had (through a letter issued by the Complainants’ then-solicitors, Tan Kok Quan Partnership) requested for payment of the said $500,000 to the Complainants’ account. Contrary to the agreement, in response to the Complainants’ said request, the Respondent had informed them that Gibson Dunn were not holding any fee deposit for the Complainants. Consequently, the sum of $500,000 was not paid out to the Complainants. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a DT presided by Ms Molly Lim SC and Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin as DT member. Charges Two main and four alternative charges (collectively, the Six Charges) were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge (Charge 1) For fraudulent or grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the Respondent, while he a…	https://lawsoc-mc-assets.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/DT_Report_Lee_Teck_Leng_Robson_(DT_4)_20-25.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SECRETARIAT 1 SUPREME COURT LANE, SINGAPORE 178879 TEL: 6332 4040, 6332 4060, FAX: 6332 4061 DT/SEC/04/2020 1 February 2021 BY EMAIL Director, Conduct Department The Law Society of Singapore 39 South Bridge Road Singapore 058673 Mr Tan Chuan Thye, SC Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP 9 Straits View Marina One West Tower #06-07 Singapore 018937 Dear Sirs PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF LEE TECK LENG ROBSON AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR Pursuant to section 93(4)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), I submit a copy of the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of Mr Lee Teck Leng Robson Yours faithfully EDWIN SAN SECRETARY DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL C:DT/04/2020.(18D) - ES/NA/AC 61 was not 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 LPA; as Charges 2AA and 2BB were alternative charges to Charge 1A proffered against the Respondent on the basis that there was no Deposit Agreement, in light of the DT’s finding that there was a Deposit Agreement, it was unnecessary for the DT to deal with Charges 2AA and 2BB; pursuant to Section 93(1)(a) of the LPA, the DT determined that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under Section 83 of the LPA; and the DT ordered that the Respondent and the Complainants shall each bear his or their respective costs. Dated this 1st day of February 2021. President Advocate & Solicitor Ms Molly Lim, SC Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin	2021-10-06T06:00:51+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/	In the Matter of Lee Teck Leng Robson (Respondent), Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2021/	9543a7360cb43aca1b5ce935887b94d278d4b587	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	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 misc…			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	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	20	20	1	1049	In the Matter of Sham Chee Keat, Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Sham Chee Keat, 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 reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The complaint concerned a statement in the Affidavit of the Respondent’s client, in which the said client, who was the Plaintiff of the suit, deposed and attested that the Respondent did not inform the Court (during the Pre-Trial Conference or PTC on 2 March 2016) that they would make the application for bifurcation of the Suit by 16 March 2016 and that the Defendant involved in the suit had “misquoted and twisted the words of my solicitor…”. However, the Notes of Evidence of the Assistant Registrar (AR) in relation to the PTC indicated that there was an agreement by both parties that the Suit was suitable for bifurcation. Woo Bih Li, J noted the inconsistencies between the Affidavit and the AR’s Notes of Evidence and referred the matter to the Society pursuant to section 85(3) of the Act. The DT subsequently granted leave to the Society’s Counsel to amend its charges as the Statement of Case submitted to the DT alluded to carelessness or lack of diligence on the Respondent’s part rather than dishonesty. Accordingly, the amended charges preferred against the Respondent were read as follows: 1st Charge “You, Sham Chee Keat, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev Ed), to wit, by breaching Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 in that, sometime between 2 March 2016 and 11 June 2016, you had failed to be honest in all your dealings with your client, Ms Tan Chin Lay Evelyn, by providing information to her, to the effect that- (a) you did not …			2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	In the Matter of Sham Chee Keat, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	0c44b5ba269dbebd1e7398536bf4cef80cc41457	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	21	21	1	1049	In the Matter of Wong Sin Yee, Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Wong Sin Yee, Advocate and 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 reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $6,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint by the Singapore Police Force that alleged that the Respondent had, on two separate occasions during his conversations with two different Investigation Officers (IOs), used offensive, insulting and threatening language against the two officers who were discharging their duties. The Respondent had in his conversation with an IO threatened to lodge a complaint to his superiors as well as ‘Ministers’, challenged the IO to prefer criminal charges against his client and said that he will “drag the case against the client for one whole year” and the client would be made to “sell her body and earn money to pay [the Respondent’s] lawyer fees”. In a separate conversation with another IO, he shouted at the IO that he “will be applying for hearing for the case”, accused the IO of being “cocky” and shouted “sure my balls, you are an idiot”. Two charges were preferred against the Respondent. The 1st Charge referenced his misconduct in the first conversation with one of the IOs, which was a breach Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR) 2010 amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty under section 83(2)(b) of the Act. The 2nd Charge referenced his misconduct in the second conversation with the other IO, which was a breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of PCR 2015 amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty under section 83(2)(b) of the Act. Additionally, two alternative charges were tendered against the Respondent citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme …			2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	In the Matter of Wong Sin Yee, Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	4aec159dd42b390aefe6940a0d1a3252b49025b4	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	22	22	1	1049	In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar, Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar, 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 reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $2,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint in respect of some of the Respondent’s clients’ claims made by JKS Motorworks (Accident Claims) Pte Ltd, an agent engaged by various owners of vehicles which were involved in traffic accidents to claim for losses and/or damages arising therefrom. The Respondent’s firm was engaged by these clients to claim for losses and/or damages arising from traffic accidents. The gist of the Complaint against the Respondent was that she had failed to act with reasonable diligence in the provision of her services to the clients, as she had failed to keep her clients (through the Complainant) informed of the progress of their respective cases. Before the DT hearings, the DT was notified that the Law Society would proceed only on four charges (Charges No. 1, 3, 7 and 9) out of the initial 19 charges based on an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASOF) and the Respondent would be taking a certain course of action in relation to the four charges. The four charges which referred to breaches of Rule 5(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR 2015) for not keeping her clients informed of the progress of their respective claims, which amounted to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act, were as follows: Charge No. Dates between which no updates were provided to the client 1 24/12/15 – No updates as of formulation of ASOF dated 02/10/19 3 15/01/16 – 20/06/18 7 22/07/16 – 11/07/18 9 05/04/16 – 22/05/18 Findings by the DT The Respondent pleaded guilty to the aforementioned four charges citing section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act at the ons…			2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	In the Matter of Constance Margreat Paglar, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	f624789e06063e517e505d3d9e13043b2b4bef46	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	23	23	1	1049	In the Matter of L. F. Violet Netto, Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of L. F. Violet Netto, 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 reprimanded. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint by the Attorney-General, in relation to two Personal Costs Orders (PCOs) that had been made against the Respondent. The Respondent had failed to comply with the PCOs within reasonable time and without reasonable explanation for such delay, and she had also failed to accord the respective State Counsel of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) the courtesy of responding to their letters (specifically, a final reminder from the AGC) in connection with the PCOs. In addition, the Respondent had chosen to ignore the final chaser from the AGC to comply with the PCOs. As a result of the said circumstances, a total of three charges were formulated against the Respondent. The First Charge and the Second Charge were for the Respondent’s failure to comply with cost orders (in HC/OS 130/2015 and HC/OS 226/2015, respectively) made against her within a reasonable time and without any reasonable explanation which amounts to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. The Third Charge was for the Respondent’s breach of Rule 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules by neglecting, refusing and/or failing to respond to AGC’s letter of 23 February 2018 in relation to her payment obligations under the costs orders, which amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. An Alternative Third Charge referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act was also formulated. Findings by the DT Prior to the proceedings by the DT proper, the Respondent made pa…			2020-07-06T06:00:09+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	In the Matter of L. F. Violet Netto, Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jul-2020/	849cd6f9ebec707d8c4fc36fbe814d51b2e8de02	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	24	24	1	1049	In the Matter of Chan Chun Hwee Allan Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Chan Chun Hwee Allan Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) has determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The disciplinary proceedings were brought by the Law Society against the Respondent for breach of ethical and professional standards that were expected of the Respondent as an advocate and solicitor. The gravamen of the charges related to the Respondent’s rendering of excessive bills to one of his clients’. The said client filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Law Society on 12 October 2015, which led to the present proceedings. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent at the onset of the proceedings: 1st Charge “You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that you, on or about 8 September 2014, at 133 New Bridge Road, #14-06 Chinatown Point, Singapore 059413, did charge your client a total fee of $32,768.20 (including $268.20 for disbursements) for work done by you as his solicitor for the period 7 August 2013 to 8 September 2014, as evidenced by your Bill No.1582/14 dated 8 September 2014, which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what you were reasonably entitled to charge for the services rendered to your client, and such overcharging by you amounts to a breach of Rule 38 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (“PCR”), and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act as amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.” 2nd Charge “You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that you, on or about 24 April 2015, at 133 New Bridge Road, #14-06 Chinatown Point, Singapore 059413, did charge your client a total fee of $72,063.80 (including $563.80 for disbursements) f…			2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	In the Matter of Chan Chun Hwee Allan Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	e10583f786416ce8a2659c0bb11365b65d9b71c4	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	25	25	1	1049	In the Matter of Kang Bee Leng Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Kang Bee Leng 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 reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint by the Attorney-General that the Respondent had breached Rule 70D of the Act. Prior to this complaint, the Respondent had been convicted of an offence under section 39 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA) for failing to file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) despite having reasonable grounds to believe that the $5.5 million paid by her client towards the purchase of a property represented proceeds that were linked to a Ponzi scheme operating in China. The evidence showed that the Respondent had been informed by the real estate agent that her client had been detained by the authorities in China for her involvement in a Ponzi scheme and thereafter the Respondent came across various news articles verifying that her client had indeed been involved the said Ponzi scheme. The Respondent became suspicious that the monies used by the client to pay for the said property purchase could have been derived from fraud. However, despite her suspicions, she did not file an STR as stipulated under section 39(1)(a) of the CDSA. On 17 April 2018, she was sentenced to a fine of $10,000 for an offence under section 39 of the CDSA. The Respondent was charged for failing to disclose to a STR Officer by way of a suspicious transaction report or to an authorised officer under the CDSA that the monies paid by her client towards the purchase of a property represented proceeds of an act that may have constituted criminal conduct despite having reasonable grounds to believe so and had thereby breached section 70D of the Act, such breach amounting to improper conduct or p…			2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	In the Matter of Kang Bee Leng Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	555f64b9cf717d8c8ce2953ad243079d46aa5a27	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	26	26	1	1049	In the Matter of Kangatharan Kandavellu Formerly an Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Kangatharan Kandavellu Formerly an Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) 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 $15,000. The said disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a qualified Accountant’s Report dated 6 July 2015, which was submitted by the Respondent to apply to renew his practicing certificate in July 2015. The aforementioned Accountant’s Report showed that the Respondent’s Firm’s client account was overdrawn and the accountant could not verify with supporting documents (such as bills, disbursement schedules or other authorisation documents) transfers from the Firm’s client account to its office account for payment of legal fees in respect of six cases, as well as a general journal entry. These issues raised by the accountant in the said Account Report revealed several breaches of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (‘SAR’), and the said breaches formed the substance of the five charges preferred against the Respondent. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, on or about 30 June 2014, withdrew a total sum of $36,328.26 from the Clients Account of KANGA & CO which exceeded the sum of $11,078.65 being the total of the money held at the material time in the said Clients Account and in so doing you have thereby breached Rule 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules and are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).” 2nd Charge “You, Kangatharan Kandavellu, being an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, on or…			2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	In the Matter of Kangatharan Kandavellu Formerly an Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	d5c2da1bad2a923ba4ff5be040406b2bdf7a7b2a	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	27	27	1	1049	In the Matter of Yeo Kan Kiang Roy Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Yeo Kan Kiang Roy Advocate and 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 reprimanded. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of his failure to keep the client’s daughter/Complainant informed of matters concerning his High Court Suit of various matters in the client’s High Court Suit and his subsequent discharge from the matter. The client was at the material time facing criminal charges overseas and was detained, thus becoming uncontactable. It was later learnt that he subsequently suffered a stroke. A total of 12 charges were preferred against the Respondent at the onset of the proceedings. Each of the principal charges referenced section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act whilst the alternative charges referenced section 83(2)(h) of the Act. The charges referencing the various breaches of the 2010 edition of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (‘PCR’) and the findings by the DT are summarized in the table below. Nature of Charge Findings of the DT 1st Charge Breach of Rule 17 of PCR for failure to keep client reasonably informed of the directions made at the 25 January PTC. Charge made out as DT found that the Law Society had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent had made “no attempt” to inform his client of the directions made at the PTC. 2nd Charge Breach of Rule 17 of PCR for failure to keep client reasonably informed of the directions made at the 8 February PTC. Charge made out, the DT took the same position as it did for the 1st charge. 3rd Charge Breach of Rule 17 of PCR for failure to keep client reasonably informed of the Discharge Application and Discharge Order. Charge dismissed, the DT found that the Respondent had served a copy of the Discharge Order on his client’s last known address in compliance with Order 64 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court…			2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	In the Matter of Yeo Kan Kiang Roy Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/	494b994181bcb96e011246550c1d6d99dbead270	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	28	28	1	1049	In the Matter of Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor The present proceedings against the Respondent arose out of information referred by the Deputy Attorney-General to the Law Society that the Respondent may have “potentially breached Rules 25 and 46” of the (the Professional Conduct Rules 2010 Edition)”. On the application of the Society, on the 13 of February 2019 the Chief Justice empaneled a Disciplinary Tribunal to be presided by Mr Sarjit Singh Gill SC and Mr Yee Kee Shian Leon as Advocate member. The complaint related to the preparation and execution of the Last Will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Mr Lee) on or around 16 and 17 December 2013. Two charges were preferred against the Respondent: 1st Charge – Breach of Rule 25(a) and/or (b) of the PCR in that the Respondent failed to advance Mr Lee’s interest unaffected by her interest or the interest of her husband, LHY by preparing and arranging for the execution of Mr Lee’s Will where a one-third share in Mr Lee’s Estate was to be given to LHY and such act amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act). 2nd Charge – Breach of Rule 46 of PCT by acting in respect of significant gift (a one-third share of in Mr Lee’s Estate) that Mr Lee intended to give by Will to LHY and failing to advise Mr Lee to be independently advised in respect of this significant gift, such acts amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. Other than the aforesaid main charges, alternative charges, based on the same facts as the main charges but referencing improper conduct and or practice as a solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act (DT refers to these charges as “Charge 1A” and “Charge 2A” to distinguish them from the main charges and further alternative referencing misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honorable profession or as an …	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lee_Suet_Fern_DT_Report-c.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL 1 SUPREME COURT LANE, SECRETARIAT SINGAPORE 178879 TEL: 6332 4040, 6332 4060, FAX: 6332 4061 DT/SEC/01/2019 18 February 2020 Director, Conduct Department The Law Society of Singapore 28 Maxwell Road #01-03 Maxwell Chambers Suite Singapore 069120 Dear Sir PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF LEE SUET FERN (LIM SUET FERN) AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR Pursuant to section 93(4)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), I submit a copy of the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of Mrs Lee Suet Fern. Yours faithfully EDWIN SAN SECRETARY DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL C:DT/01/2019.(18D) - ES/AC. DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DT/1/2018 In the Matter of LEE SUET FERN (LIM SUET FERN), an Advocate and Solicitor And In the Matter of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161, 2009 Rev ED) REPORT Coram: Mr Sarjit Singh Gill, SC Mr Yee Kee Shian Leon Solicitors for the Applicant Solicitors for the Respondent M/s WongPartnership LLP Mr Tan Chee Meng, SC M/s Providence Law LLC Mr Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Ms Koh Swee Yen Mr Eugene Oh Jiayi Michael, SC Mr Walter Woon, SC Mr Abraham Vergis Ms Asiyah Arif Ms Soh Wei Chi \| TABLE OF CONTENTS \|. Introduction I The Charges against the Respondent .. HH. Background 0.0... seecseeeereeenaneceeetenenereneestenenssnenttensenenrritesasatent (A) The relevant parties (B) Mr Lee’s First to Sixth Wills. (C) MrLee’s First Will (D) Mr Lee’s subsequent changes to his Wills (E) Mr Lee’s Sixth (or Penultimate) Will (F) Events preceding the Last Will... (G) The Last Will (H) Mr Lee's Codicil . esi csssesesseceensetsenteseeees (I) Mr Lee’s passing IV. Procedural History (A) AGC referral (B) Originating Summons 639 of 2019 (‘os 639”) (C) The Hearing & submissions... V. Preliminary Issues (A) Jurisdiction (B) Admissibility of evidence (C) Unfair Conduct. VI. Summary of the Parties’ Positions on the Charges... (A) The Law Society's Case (B) The Respondent's Case issues for determination ... VI. …	2020-02-06T04:00:03+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2020/	In the Matter of Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) (Respondent) Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2020/	f95e4a865da4c32ec0fe602aadbd2cf6c3f7b285	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	29	29	1	1049	In the Matter of Harjeet Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Harjeet Singh, an 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 under section 83 of the Act. The disciplinary proceedings arose from information referred by the Court of Appeal hearing a dispute between the beneficiaries of an estate. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal expressed concern with the professional conduct of the Respondent, namely that there was potential conflict of interest as between the Respondent’s client and other siblings and that the Respondent failed to advise each of the siblings to seek independent legal advice. The Respondent pleaded guilty to four amended charges and therefore the DT was obliged to determine whether a cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act. Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal The DT found no deliberate or wilful blindness on the part of the Respondent in his conduct of the estate matter. Accordingly, the DT determined that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action against the Respondent under section 83 of the Act, he should be reprimanded or ordered to pay a penalty sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. Further, the DT ordered that the Respondent bear the Society’s costs of the proceedings which is to be taxed if not agreed. The Council’s Decision The Council accepted the findings of the DT and accordingly reprimanded the Respondent.			2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	In the Matter of Harjeet Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	fdc713f1aef4c44d5d04c9ec3d3cb51f28553fac	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	30	30	1	1049	In the Matter of Ismail Bin Atan, an Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Ismail Bin Atan, an Advocate and Solicitor Pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act, the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined that cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (the Act). On 18 November 2014 the Respondent was charged for outraging the modesty of his former employee pursuant to section 354(1) of the Penal Code. On 26 June 2015 the charge was compounded as the victim agreed to an offer by the Respondent to compound upon payment of $3000 and a letter of apology. Subsequently the Attorney-General referred information pursuant to section 85(3) of the LPA and the Council commenced disciplinary proceedings. Three charges were preferred against the Respondent. The 1st charge set out the allegations relating to the outrage of modesty which was grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duties within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The 2nd and 3rd charges were premised on the same facts save that the 2nd charge referenced a breach of Rule 53A of Professional Conduct Rules whilst the 3rd charge referenced conduct unbecoming of an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honorable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Findings by the DT In his defence, the Respondent denied that he intended to outrage the modesty of his former employee. He alleged that he had made the offer to compound and provided the letter of apology on the advice of his counsel. The victim gave evidence and the DT found that she had provided a clear and detailed account of what had transpired and that her evidence was corroborated by several factors, including the Respondent’s letter of apology where he apologised for the unwarranted physical contact imposed on her without her consent. The DT determined under section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists against the Respondent under section 83 of the…			2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	In the Matter of Ismail Bin Atan, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	5289633e2aa9d35f26fb08489ca0cfaf391db37e	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	31	31	1	1049	In the Matter of Ong Cheong Wei, Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Ong Cheong Wei, Advocate and Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined pursuant section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that cause of sufficient gravity exists under section 83(2)(a) for disciplinary action. The Respondent was prosecuted on four charges for willfully making false entries in his income tax returns for the Years of Assessment 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2009. He pleaded guilty to two charges and the remaining two charges were taken into account and sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment and ordered to pay penalty of $118,341.78, being three times the amount of tax evaded. Council then referred his conduct to the Chairman, Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Committee recommended that there should be a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal and Council applied to the Chief Justice pursuant section 89 of the Act to convene a DT. The Respondent was charged that making false entries in his Income Tax returns for Years of Assessment 2007 and 2008, with intent to evade tax in breach section 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (Cap. 134) implied a defect of character making him unfit for the profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act. The Respondent admitted to the charge. Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal The DT noted from Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee [2003] SGHC 197 and Law Society of Singapore vs Tham Yu Xian Rick [1999] SGHC 213 that not every criminal conviction implies a defect of character rendering the advocate and solicitor unfit for the profession. The DT noted that there was no known case in Singapore where an advocate and solicitor had been convicted under the same offence as the Respondent and where disciplinary action was taken against the errant solicitor. The closest reported case was Law Society of Singapore vs Lim Chor Pee [1988] SGDSC 1 where the respondent in the matter was convicted for making an incorrect return without reasonable excuse which offence did not involve dishonesty. The respondent in tha…			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 Cheong Wei, Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	4e5b49d7571144840f026ecf868739c51edd1076	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	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 …			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	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	33	33	1	1049	In the Matter of Ryan Lin Longcai, an Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Ryan Lin Longcai, an Advocate and Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined under section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act against the Respondent, a penalty in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 should be imposed. The Complainants alleged that the Respondent had disclosed confidential information pertaining to the Respondent’s clients while using the WhatsApp mobile application. Fourteen charges detailing the various disclosures and pursuant to section 83(2)(h) of the Act were preferred against the Respondent. The Respondent admitted to the charges at the onset of the proceedings. Findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) The DT found that the Respondent had breached the Rules on confidentiality but there was no evidence that the any of the clients had suffered any loss or damage as a result. Further, the DT acknowledged that the disclosures were related to personal communications between the Respondent and the 1st Complainant. In the DT’s view the Respondent was a foolish young man who in the pursuit of the 1st Complainant, forgot his duty to keep matters relating to his professional engagement confidential. His naiveté that these disclosures would not come back to haunt him when he ended his relationship with the 1st Complainant, attested to his youth and foolishness. However, this did not excuse the Respondent from what he had done. The DT noted that whilst there were no cases in Singapore involving a breach of confidentiality which reached the DT stage, the DT was guided by several cases from the Commonwealth jurisdictions which suggested that the imposition of a fine was an appropriate form of punishment. The DT determined that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity exists pursuant to section 93(1)(b) for disciplinary action, a fine in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 should be imposed on the Respondent. The Council’s Decision Council adopted the findings an…			2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	In the Matter of Ryan Lin Longcai, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/	f5e7c01724d031028fe2597ee9e76ab05d165763	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	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 mind…			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	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	35	35	1	1049	In the Matter of Joseph Chen Kok Siang, an Advocate and Solicitor.	In the Matter of Joseph Chen Kok Siang, an Advocate and Solicitor. The Disciplinary Tribunal determined under section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act that, whilst no cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be reprimanded. The Respondent rendered an invoice to his client for $35,000 for professional fees contrary to the agreed fees of $8,000 without first informing his client of any change in circumstances, in breach of sections 111 and 112(3) of the Legal Profession Act read with Rule 35 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules. Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) The DT observed how this case illustrates the importance of having clear fee arrangements, which reflect the course of litigation and the consequent work done. As a principle, in setting out agreed or capped fees in their engagement, solicitors should: Clearly identify the stage of work such agreed/capped fees apply to; Set out the agreed/capped fees at each stage so that the effect of any unexpected event does not impact on the fees to be charged beyond that stage; Clearly identify the circumstances in which the agreed/capped fee arrangement can be changed and the process for change and notification; and Use clear, simple and unambiguous language in communicating with the client, particularly in matters involving fees. Nonetheless, the DT observed that the costs of $35,000 levied by the Respondent commensurate with the work done and is not excessive The Council’s Decision Council accepted and adopted the findings and recommendation of the DT and accordingly reprimanded the Respondent. Costs was fixed at $5,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be paid by the Respondent to the Law Society.			2018-02-07T04:00:40+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2018/	In the Matter of Joseph Chen Kok Siang, an Advocate and Solicitor._https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2018/	581f586e5ef41f3a90087b0c408cb412c1fdeeb1	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	36	36	1	1049	In the Matter of Harjeet Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Harjeet Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor Pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act, the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) determined that cause for sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The disciplinary proceedings arose from information referred by the Court of Appeal hearing a dispute between the beneficiaries of an estate. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal expressed concern with the professional conduct of the Respondent, namely that there was potential conflict of interest as between the Respondent’s client and other siblings and that the Respondent failed to advise each of the siblings to seek independent legal advice. The Respondent pleaded guilty to four amended charges and therefore the DT was obliged to determine whether a cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act. Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal The DT found no deliberate or wilful blindness on the part of the Respondent in his conduct of the estate matter. Accordingly, the DT determined that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action against the Respondent under section 83 of the LPA, he should be reprimanded or ordered to pay a penalty sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. Further, the DT ordered that the Respondent bear the Society’s costs of the proceedings which is to be taxed if not agreed. The Council’s Decision The Council accepted the findings of the DT and accordingly reprimanded the Respondent.			2018-02-07T04:00:40+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2018/	In the Matter of Harjeet Singh, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2018/	812851904a82d300279706f0b58d1784b8e6cdd3	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	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 th…			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	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00	2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661	38	38	1	1049	In the Matter of Krishna Morthy S V (the “Respondent”), an Advocate and Solicitor	In the Matter of Krishna Morthy S V (the “Respondent”), an Advocate and Solicitor The disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint from a client that the Respondent permitted his employee, one Ebrahim Marican Batcha Sahib (“Ebrahim”) to misappropriate an amount of $108,000, which payment was for completion of the purchase of a HDB flat. The Charges The DT found the Respondent guilty of the following charges: 3rd Charge “You, Krishna Morthy S V, are charged that you 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), by breaching Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct),Rules, being a rule of conduct made by the Council under section 71 of the Legal Profession Act, in that from 1 July 2008 to November 2010, you surrendered the management and control of Frontier Law Corporation, a law firm of which you were at all material times the sole director, to one Mr Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican, and one Mr Anand Kumar s/o Toofani Beldar, including but not limited to the surrender of control over the said law firm’s banking accounts, and by so doing, failed to exercise any or any reasonable supervision over the employees and/or staff of Frontier Law Corporation, to wit, you had admitted to the Inquiry Committee of the Law Society of Singapore, by way of your solicitor’s letter dated 4 November 2014 that the said Mohd Sadique and Anand Kumar whilst employed as “legal assistants” of the law firm, were, in fact, the “controlling partners” of Frontier Law Corporation since its inception on 1 July 2008 till November 2010 when they left the firm and that the said Mohd Sadique and Anand Kumar “were running the firm at that time as any files which came to the firm was controlled by them and all profits and monies taken by them”. 4th Charge “You, Krishna Morthy S V, are charged that you are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties with…			2018-01-07T04:00:19+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/	In the Matter of Krishna Morthy S V (the “Respondent”), an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/	198809f03d0abc9b53c70893663fb35488d5e674	[ "title", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2024-02-17T15:51:54+00:00	3a02c1f3ecd47f2564c4786bc4cb755873d8f279	39	39	1	1091	In the Matter of Kwa Kim Li (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Kwa Kim Li (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling (the Complainants), both executors of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s estate, on 9 September 2019. There were initially four heads of complaint, including that the Respondent had: Failed to follow the instructions of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew (the Testator) to destroy his superseded wills (the First Complaint); Breached privilege and her duties of confidentiality by sending emails with records of communications with the Testator to Mr Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) who was not an executor of the estate of the Testator (the Estate) (the Second Complaint); Failed to keep proper contemporaneous notes and records of all the advice given to and instructions received from the Testator (the Third Complaint); and Given false and misleading information to the executors in her emails of 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015 (the Fourth Complaint). Council determined that there should be a formal investigation by the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) only on the Second Complaint. The Complainants, being dissatisfied with the Council’s determination, applied to the High Court for an order to direct Law Society to appoint a DT for the First and Fourth Complaints as well. The Chief Justice empaneled a DT presided by Mr Narayanan Sreenivasan, SC and Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin as DT member. Charges The Respondent plead guilty to a charge prosecuted by the Law Society (the Law Society’s Charge), and contested a charge prosecuted by the Complainants (the Complainants’ Charge): Law Society’s Charge You, KWA KIM LI, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you on or about the 4th day of June 2015 by your letter dated 4th June 2015 sent to Mr Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) are guilty of knowingly disclosing to LHL, without the consent / authority of the two Executors and Trustees named in Will No. 7 namely Ms Lee Wei Ling (LWL) and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), the following documents and information …	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Feb_24_Full_DT_Report-com.pdf	DT 19 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF KWA KIM LI AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Disciplinary Tribunal: Mr N Sreenivasan, S.C. – President Mr Tan Kheng Ann Alvin – Advocate & Solicitor Counsel for the Law Society of Singapore Counsel for the Complainant Mr R S Bajwa Bajwa & Co with Mr Rezza Gaznavi of Mahmood Gaznavi Chambers LLC Mr Abraham Vergis, SC with Ms Asiyah Arif and Mr Kyle Chong Providence Law Asia LLC Counsel for the Respondent Mr Cavinder Bull, SC with Ms Gerui Lim and Ms Elisabeth Liang Drew & Napier LLC Dated this 5th day of May 2023 Introduction 1. These proceedings (“DT 19”) arise from a complaint by Mr Lee Hsien Yang (“LHY”) and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling (“LWL”), made on 9 September 2019 (the “Complaint”). The Respondent solicitor is Ms Kwa Kim Li. The Respondent is a partner in the firm of M/s Lee & Lee, and is an advocate and solicitor of more than 40 years’ standing. 2. The Complaint covered various matters, which came before this Disciplinary Tribunal through different procedural routes. Procedural History 3. In the Complaint by LHY and LWL, there were four heads of complaint. These were:(a) First, that the Respondent had failed to follow the instructions of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew (the “Testator”) to destroy his superseded wills (the “First Complaint”); (b) Second, that the Respondent had breached privilege and her duties of confidentiality by sending emails with records of communications with the Testator to Mr Lee Hsien Loong (“LHL”) who was not an executor of the estate of the Testator (the “Estate”) (the “Second Complaint”); (c) Third, that the Respondent had failed to keep proper contemporaneous notes and records of all the advice given to and instructions received from the Testator (the “Third Complaint”); and (d) Fourth, that the Respondent had given false and misleading information to the executors in her emails of 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015 (the “Fourth Complaint”). 4. After considera…	2024-02-12T04:00:28+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2024/	In the Matter of Kwa Kim Li (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-feb-2024/	26bc1fa93f046928709634632ba62a5a4bbddb41	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2024-10-19T15:48:54+00:00	d21eee56c96027b51ce2574bb2af5b5f9e35402a	40	40	1	1646	In the Matter of Krishnamoorthi s/o Kolanthaveloo (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	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-pa…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Oct_24_Full_DT_report_-_Krishnamoorthi_so_Kolanthaveloo.pdf	DT/24/2021 IN THE MATTER OF KRISHNAMOORTHI S/O KOLANTHAVELOO (AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Coram President: Mr Lok Vi Ming, S.C. Advocate & Solicitor: Ms Disa Sim Jek Sok Solicitors for the Law Society: Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Daniel John Ms Cara Satapornvanit Mr Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh Bajwa GOODWINS LAW CORPORATION 143 Cecil Street #03-02 GB Building Singapore 069542 BAJWA & CO 3 Shenton Way #08-02 Shenton House Singapore 068805 Dated this 3rd day of January 2023 2 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Mr Krishnamoorthi s/o Kolanthaveloo (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”). 2. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made by way of a letter dated 26 November 2020 against the Respondent by Mr Seto Wan Tarng (the “Complainant”), a taxi driver who has been working with ComfortDelGro since 2002. II. CHARGES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL 3. On 11 November 2021, this Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was appointed. In the Statement of Case filed by the Law Society against the Respondent dated 21 October 2021, the original charges preferred were as follows: a. The first main charge was that the Respondent had breached rules 5(2)(b), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(i), 17(2)(c), 17(4), 26(2) and/or 39(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”) in that sometime between 26 September 2019 and 2 December 2019, during the course of the Firm’s retainer in acting for the Complainant in his personal injury matter, the Respondent had: i. issued the Firm’s 26 September 2019 letter to NTUC Income Insurance Cooperative Limited (“NTUC”), rejected their counter-offer of 25 November 3 2019, and issued the Firm’s further counter-offer of 2 December 2019 to them, without the Complainant’s instructions; and/or ii. failed to keep t…	2024-10-11T07:00:15+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2024/	In the Matter of Krishnamoorthi s/o Kolanthaveloo (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2024/	db4fd85ec9f4f9e396ca0f4d7fd820fd3e3a50d3	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2024-10-19T15:48:54+00:00	d21eee56c96027b51ce2574bb2af5b5f9e35402a	41	41	1	1646	In the Matter of Nedumaran Muthukrishnan (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Nedumaran Muthukrishnan (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint made by Mr Chan Yee Huat (the Complainant) who was a client of the Respondent from 2013 to 2019. The Respondent was engaged to represent the Complainant in the following lawsuits involving various insurance companies: HC/S 324/2016, HC/S 325/2016 and HC/S 52/2017. The first two suits had their judgments entered into on 3 October 2017 and 10 October 2017 respectively. The defendants in both suits were ordered to pay certain costs and disbursements to the Complainant. However, the Complainant was made a bankrupt on 13 November 2017. At the Respondent’s request, a part of the judgement sums amounting to approximately $160,395.96 (the sum) was paid to the Respondent’s law firm. Between February to April 2020, the Complainant instructed the Respondent on numerous occasions to utilise the sum to pay various persons nominated by the Complainant. Despite the Respondent’s numerous instances of assurances via email, the Respondent did not make any payments to the nominated persons, nor did he inform and/or account to the Complainant as to how he had utilised the sum. Subsequently, the Respondent admitted to the Inquiry Committee that when he issued the emails he had already set off the sum against his legal fees and costs. However, no invoice was ever issued to the Complainant with respect to the sum or any part of it that was allegedly set off. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Kok Quan, SC and Mr Andrew Chan as DT member. Four charges (and their alternatives) were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge For improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (LPA) in that the Respondent had misled the Complainant into believing that he had or would shortly be posting and/or hand-delivering cheques for the payment of …	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Oct_24_Full_DT_report_-_Nedumaran_Muthukrishnan.pdf	DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1966 DT/10/2022 IN THE MATTER OF NEDUMARAN MUTHUKRISHNAN (FORMERLY OF N NEDUMARAN & CO) AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (CHAPTER 161) REPORT OF DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL PRESIDENT: MR TAN KOK QUAN, SC ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR: MR ANDREW CHAN TEO YIHUI NEDUMARAN MUTHUKRISHNAN (FORMERLY OF N NEDUMARAN & CO) POINTER LLC 144 ROBINSON ROAD #18-01 ROBINSON SQUARE CEDAR SUITES SINGAPORE 068908 RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Law Society of Singapore Dated this 18th day of September 2023 Background Facts 1. The Complainant is Mr Chan Yee Huat (the “Complainant”). During the period 2013 to 2019 he was a client of Mr Nedumaran Muthukrishnan (the “Respondent”). 2. The Respondent was called to the Bar on 25 May 1996 and at the material time was practising at the law firm of Messrs M Nedumaran & Co. However, the Respondent has not held a practising certificate since April 2020. 3. The Respondent was engaged to represent the Complainant as well as members of his family in various lawsuits involving various insurance companies in respect of health issues, traffic accidents and home accidents. The claims in which the Complainant was the plaintiff included HC/S 324/2016, HC/S 325/2016 and HC/S 52/2017. 4. Judgements (by consent) were entered for the Complainant in HC/S 324/2016 on 3 October 2017 and in HC/S 325/2016 on 10 October 2017. 5. The defendant in HC/S 324/2016 was ordered, inter alia, to pay to the Complainant: a. b. c. 6. $120,000 (inclusive of $20,000 as interim payment) being $100,000 in general damages and $20,000 in special damages; Costs and disbursements to be agreed or taxed; and The disbursements included $225.00 being the Public Trustee fees. The defendant in HC/S 325/2016 was ordered, inter alia, to pay to the Complainant: a. b. c. d. $660,000 (inclusive of $170,000 as interim payment), being $260,000 in general damages, and $400,000 in special damages; Costs at $55,000; Dis…	2024-10-11T07:00:15+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2024/	In the Matter of Nedumaran Muthukrishnan (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-oct-2024/	d4744eac5fe0b86c459f467d0f8aa741caca25f0	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2024-11-05T15:50:08+00:00	85233e35f6960aea9371475afa2997f6c0bb6869	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-par…						84760194569271f4621bb4b8945e789ee70a0c54	[ "content" ]
2024-11-23T15:51:37+00:00	d9bb60dec94963ce91f8f302014b794bd9452ded	43	42	1	1661	In the Matter of Rai Vijay Kumar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Rai Vijay Kumar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor The present proceedings against the Respondent arose from statements made by the Respondent about the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean (the Judge) and/or members of the Appellate Division of the High Court. The Respondent acted for the plaintiff, one Ms Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman (Ms Noor) in a claim against Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and other defendants, which was heard before the Judge. After Ms Noor’s passing, her brother was added as a party to continue the action in his capacity as executor of her estate (the Estate). The Respondent had conduct of the matter for the Estate. The Estate commenced an appeal (the Appeal), which was allocated to be heard by the Appellate Division of the High Court. Whilst arguing the Appeal, the Respondent made statements that undermined public confidence in the administration of justice and in the Singapore judicial system (the Statements). The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Kenneth Tan SC and Mr Paul Wong as DT member. The Law Society proffered against the Respondent one charge and one alternative charge as follows: Charge (the Charge) For breach of rule 13(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, in that the Respondent made statements against the Judge and/or members of the Appellate Division of the High Court that were disrespectful towards the Honourable Court, amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA). Alternative Charge (the Alternative Charge) For making of statements against the Judge and/or members of the Appellate Division of the High Court which were disrespectful towards the Honourable Court, amounting to 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 LPA. Findings by the DT, Council’s Sanction The DT noted th…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Nov_24_Rai_Vijay_Kumar_full_DT_report.pdf	28th TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INtrOdUCTION...............000..cabtnecnribesacesuessuinissnasutereneseaiassinnaasvasenseniaas sxeomneasonaenanssspeaensceousnesaTeaaNeN 3 Hi. The Charges .............:c0:+.scessaresaauauniusnusiavusssoansnswasusiensawvestaskasesnasnneasexasiveonaeneadeepnnieceeesenaseasanens 3 lll. Circumstances leading to the proCee@dingS ............cceecccecsessecessesenesseeseessescneesseseeesseaeaees 6 IV. Procedural History sississsssissecssssecsesvsssnswvevenessnesnnsneveveenssveavsconsnvvasssaescasneaooncennenyyssesscnecesenseeeees 11 V. —- The Law Society's Case wsssccsssssexsassnesasvaexnaconsnnsmeaesnssvnansananoxessvovenneasonstvasnaonsonnavejerssrossssseorece 14 VI. The Law Society's Case on the Alternative Charge ...........cccssssesseseseesescnseessseeceeeenens 27 VIL. The Respondent's Case sicavsosssusassvsonnsrennxenonnsnnsenensnonrseonmenroncecereensouneaeeeneenerauternarenenennens 28 VIL. Our FIndingS......cccecccsecsscssscessecesscsescsesesossesecsusaeeacsaeseeaeaceaeseseeaseeseueaesasauseateeeaeeasaeenenenes 40 Ey SMCS 1M rererercerers. cases see secneeorasseeeeseseoserenes QBRRSHRESUERRERRORERRON Immerse EI NERERSE eee EE 49 Introduction These proceedings professional concern misconduct one charge brought by the (and Law an alternative Society charge) of Singapore of (“Law Society”) against the Respondent, Rai Vijay Kumar (the “Respondent’). The Respondent is an advocate and solicitor of more than 32 years’ standing, having been admitted to the rolls on 14 March 1990. At all material times, the Respondent was the managing director of Arbiters inc Law Corporation. The Charges The Law Society proffered one charge of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”) and an alternative charge of 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 LPA as follows: CHARG…	2024-11-11T04:00:28+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-nov-2024/	In the Matter of Rai Vijay Kumar (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-nov-2024/	b77dcb27a593754fb816a662040282aca51060e2	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]
2024-11-23T15:51:37+00:00	d9bb60dec94963ce91f8f302014b794bd9452ded	44	43	1	1661	In the Matter of Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from information referred by the Attorney-General on the Respondent’s conduct in relation to the false attestation of having witnessed the signing of mortgage documents by a client when he had not personally done so. The Respondent had never met the client, and left his secretary to witness the signing of the mortgage documents. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Kuah Boon Theng SC and Sanjiv Rajan as DT member. The following charges were preferred at the onset of the proceedings: First Charge and First Alternative Charge Falsely representing that he had witnessed the signature of his client as it appeared on the mortgage instrument by signing as witness to his signature, and thereafter signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the mortgage instrument, when he had in fact not personally witnessed his client sign the mortgage instrument Thereby being guilty of improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) Thereby being guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate or solicitor (sic) of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act Second Charge and Second Alternative Charge Recklessly or negligently certifying that the client had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity by signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the transfer instrument in his capacity as his client’s solicitor, when he had in fact never personally confirmed that the client had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity, had left the preparation of the transfer instrument to his staff, and did not check the contents of the transfer instrument before signing the Certificate o…	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Nov_24_Muhammed_Lutfi_full_DT_report.pdf	16th Introduction On 14 July 2020, the Attorney-General (the “Complainant”) wrote to the Law Society of Singapore to lay a complaint against the Respondent Mr Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin (the “Respondent”), pursuant to s 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) (the “Complaint”)!. The Respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of 26 years’ standing, having been admitted to the Bar in 1995, At the material time, he was the sole director of the law firm Lutfi Law Corporation. Lutfi Law Corporation ceased operations on or around 1 May 2017 and the Respondent is currently working at A. Rohim Noor Lila LLP. The Complaint alleges that the Respondent falsely attested to witnessing the signing of conveyancing documents by a client he had never met nor personally attended to, having left his conveyancing secretary to attend to the client. For this, the Respondent had already been convicted in the State Courts of Singapore on 10 June 2020 on two charges under s 59(6) of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) (“LTA”), namely, DCN-900055-2019 and DCN-900018-2020 (“the State Court Charges”). The Respondent pleaded guilty to both the State Court Charges and was sentenced to a global fine of $5,600. In pleading guilty, the Respondent accepted the Statement of Facts dated 25 May ' CBOD Tab \| 2 CBOD Tab 10 & Tab 11 2020 prepared by Deputy Public Prosecutors Benedict Chan and Joseph Gwee (“Prosecution’s Statement of Facts”)°. Il. Background facts Sometime in 2014, a property agent by the name of Kok Chiew Leong introduced Mohammad Naseeruddin bin Allamdin (“Naseeruddin”) secretary with Lutfi Law Corporation by the name Hussain, Angela also known as Veronica to a conveyancing of Fauziah binte Mohd (“Angela”). Naseeruddin was introduced as a prospective buyer of 35 Saraca Terrace, Singapore 805486 (the “Property”). He subsequently engaged the Respondent to act for him in the conveyancing transaction for the Property’. The conveyancing documents for the purchase …	2024-11-11T04:00:28+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-nov-2024/	In the Matter of Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-nov-2024/	b8858bf9e1a4ee46fd595cb1469abd7ba700b32f	[ "title", "pdf-link", "pdf-content", "unique_id", "url", "content", "timestamp" ]

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited

CREATE VIEW lss_dt_reports_version_detail AS select
  commits.commit_at as _commit_at,
  commits.hash as _commit_hash,
  lss_dt_reports_version.*,
  (
    select json_group_array(name) from columns
    where id in (
      select column from lss_dt_reports_changed
      where item_version = lss_dt_reports_version._id
    )
) as _changed_columns
from lss_dt_reports_version
  join commits on commits.id = lss_dt_reports_version._commit;

lss_dt_reports_version_detail (view)

44 rows

Advanced export