Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Committee

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

This summary is published pursuant to the requirements of s 93(5) of the Act.

In the matter of Joseph Ignatius, an Advocate and Solicitor

The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action against Mr Joseph Ignatius (‘Solicitor’) under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (‘the Act’). The Council of the Law Society accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee.

The Solicitor was charged initially with 13 charges. The Disciplinary Committee found no case to answer by the Solicitor on 10 of those 13 charges and only called for Defence to be entered on the following three charges: 

First Charge

In or about January 2001, Joseph Ignatius had failed to act in accordance with the instructions of his client, one Dolly K Niranjan, in that contrary to her express instructions, he  had included one Dr Inderjeet S Rikhraj and one Jagjit Singh s/o Kartar Singh as co-Plaintiffs in DC Suit No 802 of 2001 and he was thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) 1997 Ed.

Second Charge

That Joseph Ignatius some time during the months of March to early May 2001, failed to file an Amended Statement of Claim in DC Suit No 802 of 2001 as soon as reasonably possible, resulting in a delay of the filing of the Defence by six months and he was thereby guilty of contravening Rule 14(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2000 Ed Cap 161 made by the Council and such contravention warrants disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) 1997 Ed.

Third Charge

That Joseph Ignatius in or about January 2001, failed to advise his clients Dolly K Niranjan, Eileen Koh Poh Guat and the other Plaintiffs in DC Suits Nos 802 and 803 of 2001 that they could be liable for costs and damages if the Mareva Injunctions against the Defendants in these actions were set aside and he was thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) 1997 Ed. 

Having heard witnesses of the Law Society and the Solicitor, the DC made the finding that the three charges against the Solicitor were not proven and accordingly, made the determination to dismiss the matter.

Calling All Members of Lincoln’s Inn

Dr G Raman and Mr Chia Boon Teck are in talks with Lincoln’s Inn on the feasibility of establishing a Lincoln’s Inn alumni association in Singapore, the scale and scope of which would depend on the size and enthusiasm of Lincoln’s Inn members in Singapore.

Members of Lincoln’s Inn in Singapore who are interested in playing a role or being a member of such an alumni association in Singapore are requested to get in touch with Mr Chia Boon Teck at chiaboonteck@pltba.com.sg on an urgent basis.