|
Summary of Disciplinary Committee Reports |
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. |
The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found cause of sufficient
gravity existed for disciplinary action against Ms Vasantha Lakshmi Vardan
(‘Solicitor’) under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (‘the Act’) and referred
the matter to the Court of three Judges.
The Court of three Judges found the Solicitor guilty as charged
and ordered that she be suspended from practice for a period of two years
(with effect from 8 November 2006).
The Solicitor was found guilty of the following amended charge
preferred against her:
Charge
That Vasantha Lakshmi Vardan was charged that during the course
of her retainer during or about the period between June 1999 and October 1999
as the solicitor for Mr Ibrahim Bin Hassan and Madam Zaharah Binte Ibrahim,
she failed to advance the said clients’ interests unaffected by any interest
of any other person, by acting in the interests of Shaik Raheem and/or his
firm, in contravention of r 25(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct)
Rules, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate
and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act
(Cap 161, Rev Ed 2001).
Or in the alternative
That Vasantha Lakshmi Vardan was guilty of misconduct 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, Rev Ed 2001) by
failing to advance the interests of your clients Mr Ibrahim Bin Hassan and
Madam Zaharah Binte Ibrahim unaffected by any interest of any other person,
by acting in the interests of Shaik Raheem and/or his firm.
Mr Ibrahim Bin Hassan (‘Ibrahim’) and Madam Zaharah Binte Ibrahim
(‘Zaharah’) sold their HDB flat and appointed one Shaik Raheem s/o Abdul Shaik
Dawood (‘Shaik’) of Shaik Rassd Realty to act as their housing agent.
The Solicitor had known Shaik since 1998 and had worked out
with him on a set of documents to be used in connection with loans made by
him to clients of his housing agency.
When Ibrahim and Zaharah were referred to the Solicitor by
Shaik to act in the sale of their flat she prepared the documents she had
worked with Shaik which included a
loan agreement in this case of $50,000 which permitted Shaik to lodge a caveat
against their HDB flat for the loan, an
irrevocable authority from Ibrahim and Zaharah to the Solicitor to deduct
from the sale proceeds an amount of $50,000 plus two percent to be made payable
to Shaikh,authority to copy all letters and correspondence to Shaik’s firm,take
instructions from his real estate firm on the sale of their flat,an irrevocable
authority to deduct a sum of $300 as legal fees from the proceeds of sale
for carrying out the undertaking given by the firm to release the proceeds
of sale in such manner as Shaik directs and a statutory
declaration signed by Ibrahim and Zaharah confirming their indebtness
to him.
The DC found that in view of her prior relationship with Shaik,
where she had acted in 27 other similar cases she owed a more onerous duty
to her clients then simply explaining to them the consequences of the documents
they had signed. The DC had in this
regard noted the Solicitor’s clients’ level of education and their limited
facility in the English language.
In this case the DC found the Solicitor had a professional
duty to explain to her clients that:
1 Shaik
regularly recommended to her clients who were involved in sale and purchase
and loan transactions and she had assisted Shaik in working out provisions
of various documents they were being asked to sign. Therefore, she ought to obtain her clients’ consent for her to act for them in the transaction and
if they
agreed to;
2 explain
to them that the documents they were asked to sign contained unusual and special
terms designed to protect Shaik’s interests but adverse to her clients interests.
The DC therefore found that the Solicitor had failed to discharge
her professional duty to her clients when she failed to inform and advise them of the above facts.
In the matter of Jemaine Han Lee Yen,
an Advocate and Solicitor
The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found
that while no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action against
Ms Jemaine Han Lee Yen (‘Solicitor’) under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act
(‘the Act’), the Council should impose a penalty of $10,000 on the Solicitor
and she be ordered to pay costs of $20,000 to the Society.
The Council of the Law Society accepted
and adopted the findings and determination of the DC and imposed a penalty
of $10,000 on the Solicitor for the misconduct.
The Solicitor was found guilty of the
following charge:
Charge
That Jemaine Han Lee Yen was guilty of
grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty or of a
breach of r 25(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules as
amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within
the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) or alternatively,
of misconduct 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 in or around 1996, in conducting
the affairs of Ms Maselly Bte Ab Aziz (‘Ms Maselly’) and Mr Mohd Sazali bin
Hashim (‘Mr Sazali’) in respect of the conveyance and sale of the property
known as Block 425 Yishun Avenue 11 #02-572 Singapore 760425 (‘the property’),
she failed to advance the interests of Ms Maselly and Mr Sazali unaffected
by her own interests and/or the interests of one Desmond Peh Teck Tiong (‘Peh’)
and/or Happiness Housing System (‘HHS’).
Ms Maselly and Mr Sazali (collectively
known as ‘her clients’) had borrowed a sum of $10,000 from HHS, they had appointed
a partner of HHS as their exclusive agent namely one Desmond Peh ( ‘Peh’ ) and signed
an agreement with HHS that if the flat was sold for over $190,000 the agency
could keep the balance sum as commission. The flat was subsequently sold for
$ 213,000. The above documents were signed by the clients
before they engaged their Solicitor and the Solicitor’s advice was not sought
on the loan they had
obtained from HHS.
The Solicitor had known Peh since 1994
professionally and he had referred 41 Conveyancing matters to her firm between
September 1995 to July 1996 .
In late January 1996, Peh referred Ms
Maselly (who was formerly a real estage agent herself) to the Solicitor. The Solicitor was authorised by a letter of
authority dated 31 January 1996 to receive the full net sale proceeds of sale
which finally was $148,500.82 after taking into account the CPF refunds and
other deductibles by HDB.
The Solicitor had prepared a Power of
Attorney granting Peh the power to act as attorney for two years for the sale
of her clients’ flat and the letter of authority directed her to obtain instructions on the distribution of the proceeds
of sale from Peh .
When the sale was completed the Solicitor
made deductions in respect of her legal fees, and then paid out (by way of
cheque) a sum of $41,362 to Peh a partner of HHS and $95,000 to HHS, leaving
a balance sum of $11,613 that was paid to her client Mr Sazali after a completion
account was tendered to both her clients on 28 June 1996.
The DC found that the Solicitor failed
to fully discharge her professional duties to her clients by:
1 failing to notify her clients of her pre-existing
professional relationship with Peh;
2 failing to highlight to her clients that when
Mr Sazali was incarcerated his wife Ms Maselly could have been his attorney
instead of appointing Peh as their attorney and authorising him to give instructions
and directions to her on deductions from their sale proceeds;
3 failing to make any effort to ascertain the
terms of the agency agreement between her clients and Peh
;
4 failing to make sufficient effort to ascertain
the reasons for the distribution of the sale proceeds in the manner directed
by the attorney and to advise her clients that the deductions appeared to
be unusual; and
5 failing to take obtain instructions from her
clients whether they wanted copies of documents to be sent to them.
The DC found that the Solicitor did not
deliberately set out to further the interests of HHS or Peh or herself. Unlike the Solicitor in the case of Law Society
of
As a consequence of the Solicitor’s failure
to recognise that she was in a conflict of interest position, the DC found
that she had failed to advance her clients’ interests unaffected by the interests
of Peh and herself. As a result of
her failure to appreciate the scope of her duties to her clients, she had
failed to meet the professional standards expected of her.