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 Narayanan Vijay Kumar, an Advocate and Solicitor

1   The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action against Mr Narayanan Vijay Kumar (‘Solicitor’) under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (‘the Act’) and the charges against the Solicitor were dismissed.

2   The Solicitor was charged with the following five charges:

First Charge

That N Vijay Kumar was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor, contrary to s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that he, whilst he was acting for Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi failed to advise the said Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi of the contents of an Acknowledgement dated 5 November 1998 addressed to Ms Chandrika d/o Bhaskaran.

Second Charge

That N Vijay Kumar was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor, contrary to s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that he, whilst he was acting for Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi in the sale of their flat known as Block 317 Tampines St 33 #02-66 Singapore, failed to advise the said Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi of the contents of an undated letter to the Housing Development Board.

Third Charge

That N Vijay Kumar was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor, contrary to s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that he, whilst he was acting for Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi in the sale of their flat known as Block 317 Tampines St 33 #02-66 Singapore, failed to advise the said Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi of the contents of the letter dated 25 June 1999 to M/s Vijay Kumar.

Fourth Charge

That N Vijay Kumar was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that he, whilst he was acting for Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi in the sale of their flat known as Block 317 Tampines St 33 #02-66 Singapore, deducted the sum of $70,000.00 from the sale proceeds due to the said Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi and paid the said sum of $70,000.00 to Chandrika d/o Bhaskaran without the instructions of Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi.

In the alternative, that N Vijay Kumar was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor, contrary to s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that he, whilst he was acting for Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi in the sale of their flat known as Block 317 Tampines St 33 #02-66 Singapore, deducted the sum of $70,000.00 from the sale proceeds due to the said Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi and paid the said sum of $70,000.00 to Chandrika d/o Bhaskaran without the instructions of Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi.

Fifth Charge

That N Vijay Kumar was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that whilst he was acting for Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Salimah Bte Mohadi, failed to advance the said clients’ interests unaffected by the interest of any other person by acting in the interest of Chandrika d/o Bhaskaran contrary to Rule 25 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

3   On 27 September 2005, the two Complainants, Mr Mohamed Yusoff Bin Abu Bakar and Mdm Salimah Bte Mohadi withdrew their complaints unconditionally against the Solicitor. They both confirmed on their affirmation that they had withdrawn their complaints out of their own free will.

4   The Law Society did not withdraw their case and proceeded with the hearing because there existed a prima facie case for the Society.

5   As no evidence was eventually offered against the Solicitor and his evidence was admitted unchallenged, the DC found the Solicitor not guilty on all five charges.