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 CHONG BOON LEONG & LEE ENG BENG, Advocates & Solicitors

  1. Mr Chong Boon Leong & Mr Lee Eng Beng (hereinafter jointly referred to as “the Respondents”) were charged with the following 3 charges:-

First Charge

That Chong Boon Leong and Lee Eng Beng are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor, an officer of the Supreme court and/or as a member of an honourable profession in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that:-

You, on or about (sic) 10th day of January 2000, whilst in possession of a facsimile of a letter dated 7th January 2000 from the law firm of Messrs Engelin Teh & Partners to the law firm of Messrs David Lim & Partners, which was inadvertently faxed to you and which was a document you knew or ought to have known was covered by professional legal privilege and that you were not the intended recipients, did fail to return the facsimile and all copies made thereof by you (if any) despite being requested to do so by both Messrs Engelin Teh & Partners and Messrs David Lim & Partners on or about 11th January 2000.

Second Charge

That Chong Boon Leong and Lee Eng Beng are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor, an officer of the Supreme court and/or as a member of an honourable profession in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that:-

You, on or about 10th day of January 2000, whilst in possession of a facsimile of a letter dated 7th January 2000 from the law firm of Messrs Engelin Teh & Partners to the law firm of Messrs David Lim & Partners, which was inadvertently faxed to you and which was a document you knew or ought to have known was covered by professional legal privilege and that you were not the intended recipients of, threatened Messrs Engelin Teh & Partners and Messrs David Lim & Partners that you would disclose the contents of the letter to your clients unless they withdrew an application which they had filed in Court and to pay the costs thereof.

Third Charge

That Chong Boon Leong and Lee Eng Beng are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor, an officer of the Supreme court and/or as a member of an honourable profession in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that:-

You, on or about 24th March 2000, did breach an undertaking, which was given by you to Messrs Engelin Teh & Partners and Messrs David Lim & Partners, that you would not disclose or show either the facsimile of the letter dated 7th January 2000 from Messrs Engelin Teh & Partners to Messrs David Lim & Partners, which Messrs David Lim & Partners had inadvertently faxed to you or any of the information derived from the said facsimile of the letter to your clients or any third parties, in that you did cause to be filed a Notice to Produce on 24th March 2000 in the High Court demanding that the said letter of 7th January 2000 be produced and shown to the court, the said Notice to Produce having been filed by you as agents for your clients and with the knowledge of your clients or upon the instructions of your clients.

  1. The Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) heard the evidence of Whang Tar Liang, Ms Engelin Teh, SC and the Respondents.
  1. The DC dismissed the First Charge against the Respondents as the DC found that the Respondents had raised sufficient doubts as to the Law Society’s case.

  2. The DC dismissed the Second Charge against the Respondent as the DC found that the Second Charge was not factually made out by the Law Society.

  3. The DC dismissed the Third Charge against the Respondents as the DC was of the view the Law Society had failed to make out a case against the Respondents.

  4. In the light of the above, the DC was of the view that no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action against the Respondents.


In the Matter of LIM KIEN THYE, an Advocate & Solicitor

  1. Mr Lim Kien Thye, the Respondent, was charged with having on 2 separate occasions, ie. on 25 July 1997 and on a day between September 1997 and February 1998, conducted himself, vis-a-vis his female employee, one Linda Koh, in his office in such a manner unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.

  2. The Disciplinary Committee heard the evidence of Linda Koh and the Respondent.

  3. After hearing and investigating the matter referred to them, the DC determined that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)