|
NOTICES |
Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Committee
Pursuant to s 93(5) of the Legal Profession 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 requirement of s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
In the Matter of Vasanthi Pillai, an Advocate
and Solicitor
The Facts
The Council referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel under s 85(2) of
the Legal Profession Act ('the Act') information touching upon the conduct
of the above named solicitor who was a partner of a law practice from December
1997 to 31 March 2005.
The solicitor had in October 2001 left for the United States to join her husband and had relinquished her role in the day-to-day management of the law practice.
After considering the findings and recommendation of the Inquiry Committee the Council pursuant to s 87(1)(c) of the Act referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for a formal investigation.
The Law Society had preferred the following nine
charges against the solicitor:
The Charges
First Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act, in that you had failed to ensure that a payment of S$6,509.00
drawn on clients' account, being a payment exceeding S$5,000.00, was made
in accordance with r 8(5) of the SAR, in that the said payment was made by
way of two cheques for amounts of less than S$5,000.00 each, but totaling
S$6,509.00 (Table 1)
Second Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act, in that you had failed to ensure that a payment of S$5,711.00
drawn on clients' account, being a payment exceeding S$5,000.00, was made
in accordance with
r 8(5) of the SAR, in that the said payment was made by way of two cheques
for amounts of less than S$5,000.00 each, but totaling S$5,711.00 (Table 2)
Third Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act, in that you had failed to ensure that a payment of S$11,004.18
drawn on clients' account, being a payment exceeding S$5,000.00, was made
in accordance with r 8(5) of the SAR, in that the said payment was made by
way of 3 cheques for amounts of less than S$5,000.00 each, but totaling S$11,004.18
(Table 3).
Fourth Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act, in that you had failed to ensure that a payment of S$25,200.00
drawn on clients' account, being a payment exceeding S$5,000.00, was made
in accordance with r 8(5) of the SAR, in that the said payment was made by
way of 6 cheques for amounts of less than S$5,000.00 each, but totaling S$25,200.00
(Table 4).
Fifth Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of
s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act, in that you had failed to ensure that
a payment of S$61,159.49 drawn on clients' account, being a payment exceeding
S$5,000.00, was made in accordance with r 8(5) of the SAR, in that the said
payment was made by way of 13 cheques for amounts of less than S$5,000.00
each, but totaling S$61,159.49 (Table 5).
Sixth Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act, in that you had failed to ensure that a payment of S$16,540.00
drawn on clients' account, being a payment exceeding S$5,000.00, was made
in accordance with r 8(5) of the SAR, in that the said payment was made by
way of 4 cheques for amounts of less than S$5,000.00 each, but totaling S$16,540.00
(Table 6).
Seventh Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act in that you, on 13 January 2004, had caused the sum of
S$24,949.33 to be transferred from the clients' account to the office account
in payment of, inter alia, a bill dated 13 January 2004 for the sum of S$10,629.00,
prior to the receipt of the sum of S$10,629.00 in the clients' account on
14 January 2004, in breach of r 7(2) of the SAR.
Eighth Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the Legal Profession
(Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the
Legal Profession Act in that you had caused bank charges to be deducted from
the clients' account, between the months of March to September 2004, without
the authority of the clients, in breach of r 7(1)(a) of the SAR.
Ninth Charge
That you, Vasanthi Pillai, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge
of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession
Act or are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within
the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act or are guilty of contravening
or failing to comply with the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules
('SAR') within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act in that
you, on or about 21 October 2004, had caused a sum of S$9,696.65 being monies
received on behalf of the client, to be deposited into the office account,
which sum was transferred to the clients' account only on or about 4 November
2004, in breach of r 3 of the SAR.
The Findings
The Disciplinary Committee found on the first six charges it was undisputed
that there were payment vouchers all of which were for more than $5,000 and
in each case the amount reflected in the payment voucher was split into two
or more cheques of less than $5,000.
The Disciplinary Committee accepted that the splitting of cheques would breach r 8(5) of the then 2004 Solicitors' Accounts Rules ('the Rules'), which it noted was introduced to improve the quality of controls over monies held in the client account of a law practice so as to maintain public confidence in the legal profession's handling of monies belonging to members of the public.
However, the Disciplinary Committee found from the testimony of the Society's witnesses and the solicitor herself that she was not involved in the transactions which were the subject matter of the six charges. The payment vouchers were signed by another partner of the law practice and she did not give any instructions on these transactions.
The evidence before the Disciplinary Committee was that there was little or no communication between the solicitor and the other partners of the law practice after she had left Singapore for the last time for the United States in January 2003.
Similarly for the 7th to 9th charges the Disciplinary Committee found the solicitor could not have caused the relevant breaches of the Rules as from her testimony which was accepted by the Disciplinary Committee she did not have any knowledge of the transactions described in these charges.
For the above reasons the Disciplinary Committee found no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the solicitor which finding and determination was accepted by the Council of the Law Society.
The Disciplinary Committee report recorded its appreciation and gratitude to counsel for the Law Society and the solicitor for the fair manner in which they both had conducted their respective cases.
