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.

In the matter of Ronald Lee Kum Seng, an Advocate and Solicitor
The Disciplinary Committee ('DC') dismissed two out of three charges preferred against the Solicitor and found the Solicitor guilty only of the Second Charge (as shown below), for which the DC recommended that the Solicitor should be reprimanded by Council for his misconduct and ordered to pay the Society's costs.

Council of the Law Society accepted and adopted the findings and determination of the DC and reprimanded the Solicitor for his misconduct.

The Solicitor was found guilty of the following charge:

Second Charge
That Ronald Lee Kum Seng 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 (Chapter 161) in that he, on 5 May 2002, at Tanah Merah Country Club Singapore did, with knowledge or reason to believe that investigations were being conducted by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore ('IRAS') into offences committed by one Soh Hock Leong ('Soh'), Hock Hin Leong Timber Trading Pte Ltd and/or Chuan Timber Trading, advise the said Soh Hock Leong to leave Singapore for an indefinite period of time, intending or knowing it to be likely that such advice, if followed, would in fact obstruct or hinder the said investigations.

The DC found from the Solicitor's own evidence that he knew that the IRAS was investigating Soh and the companies Soh was involved in, and that his professional advice may be required by Soh in relation to the investigations. When Soh enquired as to whether he could leave the country and stay in Kuala Lumpur while negotiations took place with IRAS to settle matters relating to tax evasion, the Solicitor should have simply advised Soh of his legal rights as that would have been what a prudent and reasonably competent lawyer would have done. Instead the Solicitor had narrated the experience of a former client who had chosen to stay in India and proceeded to suggest that because the client had stayed out of Singapore, he had bargaining power to achieve a settlement with IRAS on terms that were more favourable to his former client.

The DC, however, found that the Solicitor did not intend to advise his client or persuade or encourage his client to leave the country to improve his bargaining power to achieve a settlement with the IRAS but the DC was of the view any objective bystander hearing the Solicitor's narration and suggestion would have inferred that the Solicitor was advising Soh to leave Singapore to improve his bargaining power with IRAS.

The DC therefore found that the Solicitor's lack of intention did not exculpate him from professional misconduct. The DC referred to the case of the Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani [2006] SGHC 143 where the Court of Three Judges held that 'the requisite standard of professionalism an advocate and solicitor ought to display in his or her practice of the law is an objective one' and 'is not dependent on the subjective perspective of the advocate and solicitor concerned' and 'the absence of dishonesty did not necessarily mean that there had been an absence of professional misconduct'.

In the matter of Pang Xiang Zhong, an Advocate and Solicitor
The Disciplinary Committee ('DC') found for the two charges preferred against Mr Pang Xiang Zhong ('Solicitor') (as shown below) that there was no cause of sufficient gravity existing for disciplinary action against the Solicitor under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (the 'Act'), but the Solicitor should be reprimanded for his misconduct and ordered him to pay the Law Society costs.

Council of the Law Society accepted and adopted the findings and determination of the DC and reprimanded the Solicitor for the misconduct.

The Solicitor was found guilty of the following two charges:

First Charge
Pang Xiang Zhong was charged that on or about 4 July 2001, whilst practising as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore with Messrs Peter Pang & Co at 25 Peck Seah Street #07-07 Singapore 079315, did knowing that it was the rest day of Mohammed Ismail Bin Abdullah (Mohammed Ismail) from work, he in the absence of Mohammed Ismail, personally attended at the work place of Mohammed Ismail, where he approached one Mr Andy Mah, the immediate supervisor of Mohammed Ismail on 4 July 2001 and complained to Mr Andy Mah regarding the alleged theft by Mohammed Ismail of certain files from his office with the intention of exerting pressure on Mohammed Ismail to return the files which Mohammed Ismail had taken from his office and he have thereby acted in contravention of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Second Charge
Pang Xiang Zhong was charged that he on 11 July 2001, whilst practising as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore with Messrs Peter Pang & Co at 25 Peck Seah Street #07-07 Singapore 079315, did write a letter to Mohammed Ismail Bin Abdullah (Mohammed Ismail) at his office address and copy the said letter to Mr Andy Mah, the immediate supervisor of Mohammed Ismail with the intention of exerting pressure on Mohammed Ismail to return the files which Mohammed Ismail had taken from his office and he had thereby acted in contravention of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

The DC found from the Solicitor's evidence and by the admission of his letter dated 11 July 2001 to Mohammed Ismail (the Complainant) that in the absence of the Complainant, the Solicitor spoke to Mr Andy Mah (the Complainant's immediate supervisor) on 4 July 2001 at his place of work and told Mr Andy Mah that the Complainant had refused to return his files and if the files were not returned by a particular date, the Complainant would be committing a criminal offence and he might have to report the Complainant to the police. The DC also found the Solicitor was not merely asking Mr Andy Mah to pass a message to the Complainant but intended to embarrass the Complainant and exert undue pressure on him.

The DC further found the Solicitor's letter of 11 July 2001 objectionable and inappropriate. The letter contained a threat of lodging a police report unless the Complainant did as the Solicitor demanded. The letter was sent to the Complainant by post and fax via his work address, copied to Mr Andy Mah and not marked under private and confidential cover as it should be as it concerned a private matter between the Solicitor and the Complainant.

The DC therefore found that the Solicitor in faxing and posting the letter the way he did and copying it to Mr Andy Mah had intended to embarrass and pressurise the Complainant.

The DC in making the finding that the conduct of the Solicitor was professional misconduct noted Council's Practice Direction on 'Threatening Letters' which read that 'the Council considers that it is unbefitting conduct for the solicitor to write such threatening letters. The use of insulting or threatening language are neither in the interests of the client nor conducive to the good name of the profession.'