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 Anthony Leonard Netto, an Advocate and Solicitor

1   Mr Anthony Leonard Netto (‘the Respondent Solicitor’) faced two charges before the Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’).

2   The two charges were:

First Charge

You, Netto Anthony Leonard, male 44 years, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you on 25 February 2004 were convicted in the Subordinate Courts in DAC 53273/2003 for an offence of consumption of cannabis, a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Acts, Cap 185, an offence under s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 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 s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Alternative First Charge

You, Netto Anthony Leonard, male 44 years, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you on 25 February 2004 were convicted in the Subordinate Courts in DAC 53273/2003 for an offence of consumption of cannabis, a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Acts, Cap 185, an offence under s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate & Solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

3   The DC found no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under s 83 for the following reasons:

a   There was no issue of dishonesty or deception in his professional capacity as an Advocate & Solicitor;

b   The offence committed was a ‘one-off’ transaction and unique to the facts of the case, in that, whilst giving a lift to a friend, the Respondent took a cigarette that was offered to him by his friend which contained cannabis;

c   The Respondent was not a drug addict;

d   The incident was an isolated one;

e   The consequences of the offence were confined to the Respondent and his family;

f    The offence and the surrounding circumstances of the entire case did not imply a defect of character which makes the Respondent unfit for the profession within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

4   In considering the appropriate punishment, the DC took into consideration the following mitigating factors:

a   The offence was not committed in the course of the discharge of the Respondent’s professional duties as an Advocate & Solicitor and had no connection with the conduct of his duties;

b   It was an isolated incident committed on the spur of the moment;

c   The Respondent co-operated fully with the relevant authorities and pleaded guilty to the offence;

d   The Respondent was remorseful and whilst he was serving the prison sentence he was given a commendation by the Superintendent of Prison. He has a record of rehabilitation;

e   During the Respondent’s prison sentence, he was also not able to practise his livelihood and had suffered financially;

f    The impact of the offence was to the Respondent himself and also to his family and not any third party;

g   Given that the Respondent has already been punished with imprisonment for an offence which had nothing to do with his professional conduct and given that he had already been deprived of his livelihood during the period of his imprisonment, the DC felt that to now impose a fine on him would serve no further purpose.

5   The DC recommended that the Respondent be reprimanded for his misconduct.

6   The Council of the Law Society accepted the recommendation of the DC and reprimanded the Respondent.