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 Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani, an Advocate and Solicitor

The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (‘the Respondent’) guilty of the two charges described below 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 Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) and/or of conduct unbefitting an advocate and 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) in that on or about 6 December 2001, acting as an advocate and solicitor, he did falsely declare and acknowledge in the attestation clause of a document titled ‘Consent for an order that Sureties be Dispensed With’ dated 6 December 2001 (‘the Consent’), that the signatories thereto (save for Muner Bin Ali) did personally appear before him and voluntarily execute the Consent when in fact they did not so personally appear before him.

Second Charge

That Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) and/or conduct unbefitting an advocate and 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) and failed to discharge his duties as solicitor for the Estate to the Beneficiaries and/or failed to safeguard the interests of the Beneficiaries, in that he subordinated the interests of the Beneficiaries to the interests of Abdul Rasid Bin Ali.

The Respondent pleaded guilty to the first charge before the DC. The Respondent admitted that he did not attend to the beneficiaries when they called at his office on 6 December 2001 to sign the Consent to Dispense with Sureties. They were instead attended to by a member of staff of his practice. And he subsequently witnessed their signatures as having been made before him when it was not the case.

The Disciplinary Committee found that the Respondent by his conduct towards the beneficiaries of the Estate led them to believe he was their lawyer as well.  The DC found that the Respondent did not make it clear to the beneficiaries that he was only acting for one of them namely the Administrator and to advise the other beneficiaries to seek independent legal advice.

The Court of three Judges of the Supreme Court ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for two years for the misconduct found by the Disciplinary Committee described above.