IN PRACTICE

Pursuant to s 93(5) of the legal Profession Act (Cap 161), the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee ('DC') in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.

As required by law, the Council publishes below, a summary of findings and determination of the DC.

Section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)

In the matter of WONG SIN YEE, an Advocate & Solicitor

  1. Mr Wong Sin Yee (“Respondent”) was charged with the following 2 charges:-

First Charge

You, Wong Sin Yee, Male 41 years, NRIC No. S1328846A, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that you, on 31 January 2001, were convicted in the Subordinate Courts for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) and you have thereby been convicted of a criminal offence implying a defect of character which makes you unfit for your profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

Second Charge

You, Wong Sin Yee, Male 41 years NRIC No. S1328846A, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that you, on 31 January 2001, were convicted in the Subordinate Courts for an offence of causing alarm under Section 13A(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Amended Act, 1996 Edition (Chapter 184), and you have thereby been convicted of a criminal offence implying a defect of character which makes you unfit for your profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

Alternative Second Charge

You, Wong Sin Yee, Male 41 years NRIC No. S1328846A, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that you, on 31 January 2001, were convicted in the Subordinate Courts for an offence of causing alarm under Section 13A(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Amended Act, 1996 Edition (Chapter 184), and you are thereby guilty of such 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 (Chapter 161).

  1. The Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) heard the evidence of the Respondent.

  2. On the First Charge, the Committee finds on the facts presented by the Law Society that cause of sufficient gravity does exist for disciplinary action under Section 83 of the Legal Profession Act.

  3. The Committee found the Respondent guilty on the Alternative Second Charge and recommended that the Respondent be ordered to pay a penalty.

In the Matter of GANESAN KRISHNAN, an Advocate & Solicitor

  1.  Mr Ganesan Krishnan (“Respondent”) was charged with the following charge

Amended Charge

That you, Krishnan Ganesan, are guilty of conduct unbecoming of an Advocate & Solicitor in the discharge of your duties as an Advocate & Solicitor, contrary to Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act in that you, whilst you were acting for one DK Credit Pte Ltd in preparing a Power of Attorney which was subsequently lodged in the Registry of the Supreme Court of Singapore as Power of Attorney No. 8994 of 2000, failed to advise Mr Abdul Rahim Bin Japri and Mdm Ayatti Binti Kepol, the donors of the Power of Attorney, to seek independent legal advice on the purport and implication of the said Power of Attorney.

  1. The Respondent admitted to the amended charge.
  2. After hearing and investigating the matter referred to them, the DC determined that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action against the Respondent under Section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161).

In the Matter of MICHAEL QUAN CHEE SENG, an Advocate & Solicitor

  1.  Mr Michael Quan Chee Seng (“Respondent”) was charged with the following 4 charges:-

First Charge

That you, Michael Quan Chee Seng, are charge [sic] with grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act in that in or about the period February 1999 to June 2000, you procured an undated signed receipt from your clients, Mdm Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman and Mr Haron bin Raja Ibrahim, in respect of a cash cheque No. 091711 for the sum of S$138,895.16 notwithstanding that the said cash cheque was never given to the said clients.

Second Charge

That you, Michael Quan Chee Seng, are charged with grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act in that in or about the period February 1999 to June 2000, you procured the execution by your clients, Mdm Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman and Mr Haron Bin Raja Ibrahim of an undated document entitled ‘Annex A: Balance Scale Proceeds Received by Haron Bin Raja Ibrahim and Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman (“The Vendor”)’ wherein the said clients purported to, inter alia, acknowledge the receipt of a DBS cheque for the sum S$138,895.16 payable to cash notwithstanding that the said cash cheque was never given to the said clients.

Third Charge

That you, Michael Quan Chee Seng, are charged that on or about 21 June 2000, while acting as solicitor for Mdm Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman and Mr Haron Bin Raja Ibrahim withdrew the sum of S$138,895.16 from your firm’s client account by encashing a cash cheque at a bank at Liat Towers, for the purpose, inter alia, of making payment to Assets Credit Pte Ltd and Corin Tan without the authority of the said Mdm Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman and Mr Haron Bin Raja Ibrahim, in contravention of Rules 7(1) and 8 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules.

Fourth Charge

That you, Michael Quan Chee Seng, are charged that on or about the period February 1999 to June 2000, during the course of your retainer as solicitor for Mdm Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman and Mr Haron Bin Raja Ibrahim, you failed to advance the client’s interests unaffected by the interest of any other person, by acting in the interests of Assets Credit Pte Ltd and Corin Tan, in contravention of Rule 25(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

  1. The Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) heard the evidence of Mdm Haslinda Binte Abdul Rahman, Mr Haron Bin Raja Ibrahim and the Respondent and the Respondent’s 2 witnesses.

  2. The DC found that all four charges were made out and determined under Section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under Section 83. The DC found that the Respondent had been guilty of grossly improper conduct, and that he had breached the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules, as well as the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

  3. The DC also ordered the Respondent to pay the costs of the Law Society.