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 Thomas Tham Kok Leong, an Advocate and Solicitor

The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found Mr Thomas Tham Kok Leong (‘the Respondent’) guilty of the first charge below or alternatively, the second charge and made a finding and determination that there was cause of sufficient gravity for him to show cause before the court of three judges of the Supreme Court under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (‘the Act’).

First Charge

That Thomas Tham Kok Leong was guilty of improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Act in that he on 19 April 2001 and 20 June 2001, despite his undertaking or duty to hold US$60,000 cash as stakeholder, did breach his undertaking or duty as a stakeholder when he released US$54,000 and US$6,000 respectively to one Sam Lin Wang in exchange for two cheques for the same amounts which were not banked in. 

Alternative First Charge

That Thomas Tham Kok Leong was guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Act in that he on 19 April 2001 and 20 June 2001, despite his undertaking or duty to hold US$60,000 cash as stakeholder, did breach his undertaking or duty as stakeholder when he released US$54,000 and US$6,000 to one Sam Lin Wang in exchange for two cheques for the same amounts which were not banked in. 

Second Charge

That Thomas Tham Kok Leong was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2) (b) of the Act in that he after 19 April 2001 and particularly by three letters dated 23 April 2001, 9 and 11 May 2001, falsely misled and deceived the complainant and his solicitors that he was continuing to hold the US$60,000 as stakeholder when he was not. 

The court of three judges on 22 November 2005 ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for two years for his breach of stakeholding undertaking and for deliberately misleading the complainant and his solicitors that he was continuing to hold the stakeholding sum.

The Disciplinary Committee found that when the Respondent knew that there was a potential dispute over the money he held as a stakeholder, the proper option would have been for him to take out an interpleader summons and allow the court to decide who was entitled to the disputed money. Instead, the Respondent in breach of his stakeholding duty had released the money to his own client.