|
NOTICES Disciplinary Committee Reports |
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 findings and determination.
This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
The Disciplinary Committee found the Respondent guilty of the first amended charge and the fourth amended charge. The disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent originated from Council’s referral of a complaint against the Respondent for overcharging his clients in a conveyancing transaction to the tune of $27,990 to the Disciplinary Committee.
The Respondent originally faced a single charge of overcharging but as the proceedings progressed, three additional charges were introduced and along the way, all four charges were amended as the opinion of the expert witness on acceptable fees, procedures, guidelines on conveyancing transactions as well as land and property policy was admitted:
You, Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners are charged that on or about 6 February 2006, at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357, did charge Mr Rayman Gao Zhiqiang and Madam Li Pin in acting for them in respect of the purchase and CPF application relating to a property situate at 45 Verde Grove, Singapore, for work done by you as their solicitor for a professional fee of S$3,000.00 and disbursements of S$4,300.00 as evidenced by your Bill No YSL 2408/06, which fee and disbursements were far in excess of and disproportionate to what you were entitled to charge for the services you rendered and such overcharging by you amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
You, Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners are charged that in or about February 2006, at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357, did accept instructions in a field of practice in which you possessed insufficient knowledge, skill or experience to provide competent representation to your clients Mr Rayman Gao Zhiqiang and Madam Li Pin in acting for them in respect of the purchase and CPF application relating to a property situate at 45 Verde Grove, Singapore which amounts to
(either)
grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
(or)
such 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.
You, Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners are charged that in or about February 2006, at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357, in acting for Mr Rayman Gao Zhiqiang and Madam Li Pin in respect of the purchase and CPF application relating to a property situate at 45 Verde Grove, Singapore, did engage on behalf of the client(s), the services of High Business Services, you did delegate and rely upon the opinion of an unauthorised person as defined in s 33 (1) & (2) of the Legal Profession Act to advise you on title, legal requisition[s] and other necessary searches to complete the purchase of the property namely High Business Services.
(either)
which delegation amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
(or)
which said delegation amounts to 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.
You, Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners are charged that on or about 6 February 2006, at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357, in the course of acting for Mr Rayman Gao Zhiqiang and Madam Li Pin in respect of the purchase and CPF application relating to a property situate at 45 Verde Grove, Singapore, did engage on behalf of the client[s], the services of High Business Services, which was a partnership owned and/or operated by persons related to you, which engagement was a course of conduct in breach of your duty not to act in conflict to your client’s interest pursuant to r 25(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules which conduct amounts to a breach of a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act as amount (sic) to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
You, Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners are charged that on or about 6 February 2006, at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357, in the course of acting for Mr Rayman Gao Zhiqiang and Madam Li Pin in respect of the purchase and CPF application relating to a property situate at 45 Verde Grove, Singapore, did engage on behalf of the client(s), the services of High Business Services, which was a partnership owned and/or operated by persons related to you, without disclosing the aforesaid relations and/or interest of such persons, to the clients which engagement and/or non disclosure amounts to 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.
The Disciplinary Committee found the second charge (and its alternative) and the third charge (and its alternative) were not made out against the Respondent based on the factual matrix and the submissions of the Society’s Counsel. For the second charge (and its alternative), the Disciplinary Committee was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent failed to take the most rudimentary steps to inform himself of the searches and requisitions he needed to do and what these would ordinarily cost.
As for the third charge (and its alternative), Society’s Counsel produced letters stating that the relevant searches and requisitions are “In Order” or “Satisfactory” and the entire charge rested on this. The Respondent for his part said that he did not rely on what was stated in these letters but actually looked at the searches and requisitions. The Disciplinary Committee was of the view that it would have been a different matter if these letters had not been accompanied by the searches and requisitions and dismissed the third charge and its alternative.
The first alternative charge and fourth alternative charge against the Respondent were made out based on the factual matrix adduced from the proceedings and in particular the Disciplinary Committee made a finding that the Respondent’s brother, Mr Michael Low had a financial interest in the fees charged by High Business Services.
At the end of the proceedings, the Disciplinary Committee determined under s 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists against the Respondent under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act. Pursuant to s 93(2) of the Legal Profession Act, the Disciplinary Committee further ordered the Respondent to pay costs to the Law Society.
Council accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee and pursuant to s 94 of the Legal Profession Act, applied under s 98 of the said Act for “show cause” proceedings against the Respondent under s 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act for overcharging and failure to declare his relations or interest in the named business concern mentioned in the fourth alternative charge.
In Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen [2009] 1 SLR 802; [2008] SGHC 170, the Coram of the Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang Boon Leong, Justice of Appeal, Chao Hick Tin and Justice of Appeal, V K Rajah decided on 21 May 2008 that the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of six months.
In the Matter of Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar, an Advocate and SolicitorThe source of the Disciplinary Committee proceedings against the three Respondents stems from the directions of Yong Pung How, CJ (as he then was) to hear the complaints of V K Rajah J (as he then was) and one David Reginald Broadley together as they as they relate to the same acts of duplicity on the part of the Respondents. The third Respondent was acting for the representatives of one of the contesting parties in the dispute over the numerous properties of a long deceased testator whilst the first Respondent and second Respondent were acting for a corporate entity who had purchased some of the properties and wished to appear as party to the claims by both opposing parties in the Originating Summons and allegedly empowered by the third Respondent. The grounds of judgment delivered in the course restitution application by client of the first and second Respondents before V K Rajah J formed the basis of the disciplinary tribunal against the three Respondents, in particular:
Both Ms No’rain Abu Binte Bakar and Ms Rudy Tan Kim Suan have conducted themselves in an entirely inappropriate manner. Time and time again, they have blatantly and disconcertingly ignored their obligations as officers of the court. In this case, I am not dealing with a single isolated lapse of judgment or breach of duty. After conniving with their clients for the release of the subject moneys, they continued to appear in court without disclosing to the court that its subsequent directions in relation to the payment out of the fund would be wholly ineffectual. A large sum of money has now been dissipated.
I am also constrained to refer Mr Peter Chua Seng Hock to a disciplinary committee so that it may scrutinise his role in this disturbing matter. Given that he was fully conversant with the entire background of the matter at all material times, I am of the firm view that he should have drawn AR Ching’s attention to the conflicting claims apropos the amount directed to be paid out on 13 September 2004. He consciously omitted to do so.
The following charges were formulated against the respective Respondents and were heard before the DC:
That each and both of you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar and Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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; and
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT each and both of you, on 8 September 2004 filed Summons in Chambers No 5008 of 2004 in Suit No 1497 of 2002 (instead of filing it in Originating Summons No 1030 of 2000) with the intention of withholding from the court or suppressing the information that there were competing claims to the sum of $4,595,350.38 which Justice Judith Prakash ordered to be paid into court on 23 July 2004.
That each and both of you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar and Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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; and
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT each and both of you, between 8 September 2004 and 13 September 2004 (both dates inclusive), with the intention of withholding from the court or suppressing the information that there were competing claims to the sum of $4,595,350.38 paid into court failed to serve Summons in Chambers No 5008 of 2004 on (1) the Public Trustee who was the trustee of the Will of Shaik Ahmad bin Abdullah Wahdain Basharahil; (2) By Products Traders Pte Ltd and David Reginald Ellis Broadley and (3) the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, each of whom had competing claims on the said sum of $4,595,350.38.
That each and both of you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar and Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules; and
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT each and both of you, at the hearing before the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004, with the intention of withholding from the court or suppressing the information that there were competing claims to the sum of $4,595,350.38 paid into court, failed to point out to her any one or more of the following, namely:
1. JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd’s garnishee application in Summons in Chambers No 6556 of 2003 made against the Public Trustee in respect of the proceeds from the sale of the 29 properties in the estate of Shaik Ahmad bin Abdullah Wahdain Basharahil (the “Estate”) had been dismissed by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Amy Tung, on 12 December 2003 and/or that she was not satisfied that there was a judgment debt due to the proper party.
2. There were competing claims to the sum of $4,595,350.38 among By Products Traders Pte Ltd (“BP”), David Reginald Ellis Broadley (“Broadley”) and JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd (“JAK”).
3. JAK had acknowledged in an affidavit filed on 14 February 2001 that most of the funds claimed by JAK from Musa Said Wachdin (“Musa”) and Salim Hasan Wachdin (“Salim”) in Suit No 1497 of 2002 were provided by BP and Broadley, both of whom had sued JAK for the refund of such funds in Suit No 453 of 2003.
4. There were competing claims among the six beneficiaries purportedly represented by Musa and Salim and that the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased had filed an application on 1 September 2004 for payment out from the said sum of $4,595,350.38.
5. Justice Judith Prakash had on 23 July 2004 made an order in Originating Summons 1030 of 2000 for payment of the proceeds from the sale of the 29 properties in the Estate into court in order to defer payment to any competing claimant pending a proper determination of rights to these moneys.
6. Justice Judith Prakash had on 26 August 2003 directed the Public Trustee to notify BP and Broadley of any future application made to the court for approval of payment of any part of the proceeds from the sale of the 29 properties in the Estate so as to ensure that any future application with regard to the said sale proceeds would have to be served on the Public Trustee, BP and Broadley and/or made by the Public Trustee.
7. JAK’s application for payment out vide Summons-in-Chambers No 5008 of 2004 made in Suit No 1497 of 2002 ought to have been made in Originating Summons No 1030 of 2000 instead.
thereby procuring the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, to make an order for the payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00 to Abu Bakar Tan Ibrahim & Partners.
That you, Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules; and
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT you at the hearing before Justice V K Rajah on 15 September 2004 failed to point out to Justice V K Rajah that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the application of the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600547 of 2004.
That you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules; and
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT you at the hearing before Justice V K Rajah on 27 October 2004 failed to point out to Justice V K Rajah that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the application of the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600547 of 2004.
That each and both of you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar and Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules;
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT each and both of you at the hearing before Justice V K Rajah on 29 November 2004 failed to point out to Justice V K Rajah that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the application of the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600547 of 2004 and the application of the estate of Awat bin Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600606 of 2004.
That each and both of you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar and Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules;’
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT each and both of you at the hearing before Justice V K Rajah on 2 December 2004 failed to point out to Justice V K Rajah that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the application of the estate of Awat bin Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600606 of 2004 and to the application of By Products Traders Pte Ltd and David Reginald Ellis Broadley in Summons in Chambers No 600732 of 2004.
That each and both of you, Nor’ain Abu Binte Bakar and Ruby Tan Kim Suan, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules;
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT each and both of you at the trial of Suit No 453 of 2003 before Justice Tan Lee Meng on 4, 5, 6 and 16 October 2004 failed to point out to Justice Tan Lee Meng that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the claim by By Products Traders Pte Ltd and David Reginald Ellis Broadley against JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd.
That you, Peter Chua Seng Hock, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules;
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT you, at the hearing before the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004, with the intention of withholding from the court or suppressing the information that there were competing claims to the sum of $4,595,350.38, failed to point out to her any one or more of the following, namely:
1. There were competing claims to the sum of $4,595,350.38 among By Products Traders Pte ltd (“BP”), David Reginald Ellis Broadley (“Broadley”) and JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd (“JAK”).
2. JAK had acknowledged in an affidavit filed on 14 February 2001 that most of the funds claimed by JAK from Musa Said Wachdin (“Musa”) and Salim Hasan Wachdin (“Salim”) in Suit No 1497 of 2002 were provided by BP and Broadley, both of whom had sued JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd for the refund of such funds in Suit No 453 of 2003.
3. There were competing claims among the six beneficiaries purportedly represented by Musa and Salim and that the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased had filed an application on 1 September 2004 for payment out from the said sum of $4,595,350.38.
4. Justice Judith Prakash had on 23 July 2004 made an order in Originating Summons 1030 of 2000 for payment of the proceeds from the sale of the 29 properties in the estate of Shaik Ahmad bin Abdullah Wahdain Basharahil (the “Estate”) into court in order to defer payment to any competing claimant pending a proper determination of rights to these moneys.
5. Justice Judith Prakash had on 26 August 2003 directed the Public Trustee to notify BP and Broadley of any future application made to the court for approval of payment of any part of the proceeds from the sale of the 29 properties in the Estate so as to ensure that any future application with regard to the said sale proceeds would have to be served on the Public Trustee, BP and Broadley and/or made by the Public Trustee.
6. JAK’s application for payment out vide Summons-in-Chambers No 5008 of 2004 made in Suit No 1497 of 2002 ought to have been made in Originating Summons No 1030 of 2000 instead.
7. JAK should have served the application for payment out vide Summons-in-Chambers No 5008 of 2004 on the Public Trustee and on the competing claimants to the sum of $4,595,350.38, namely BP Products Traders Pte Ltd (“BP”), David Reginald Ellis Broadley (“Broadley”), and the six beneficiaries, especially the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil (“UAAWB”), deceased or otherwise notify them of the hearing.
8. Letters of Administration De Bonis Non to the UAAWB estate were granted to Nuh Bin Saleh Bin Umar Bin Achmad Wachdin Basyarahil in Probate No DCP 600460 of 2001 on or about 6 July 2001 and that it was in issue whether Musa and Salim were still authorised to represent the UAAWB estate and/or the rest of the six beneficiaries and/or that the authority of the third Respondent and his firm, M/s Peter Chua & Partners, to act for the UAAWB estate and/or or the rest of the six beneficiaries was likewise in issue.
9. Letters of Administration De Bonis Non to the estate of Amat bin Achmad bin Adbullah Wachdin Basyarahil (“ARAW”) were granted to Abdul Rahim bin Awad bin Achmad Wachdin Basyarahil in Probate No DCP 729 of 1987 on or about 6 December 2003 and that it was in issue whether Musa and Salim were still authorised to represent the ARAW estate and/or the rest of the six beneficiaries and/or that the authority of the third Respondent and his firm, M/s Peter Chua & Partners, to act for the ARAW estate and/or or the rest of the six beneficiaries was likewise in issue.
thereby causing the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, to make an order for the payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00 to M/s Abu Bakar Tan Ibrahim & Partners.
That you, Peter Chua Seng Hock, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules;
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT you, at the hearing before Justice V K Rajah on 27 October 2004 failed to point out to Justice V K Rajah that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the application of the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600547 of 2004.
That you, Peter Chua Seng Hock, are guilty of:
1. Fraudulent conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
2. Alternatively, grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act;
3. Alternatively, such 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;
4. Alternatively, knowingly deceived or misled the court thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules;
5. Alternatively, failing to inform the court of all relevant decisions of which you are aware thereby contravening s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act read with r 60(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
IN THAT you, at the hearing before Justice V K Rajah on 29 November 2004 failed to point out to Justice V K Rajah that as a result of the directions made by the Assistant Registrar, Ms Ching Sann, on 13 September 2004 for payment out of court of the sum of $4,270,000.00, there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to the application of the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdul Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600547 of 2004 and the application of the estate of Awat bin Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basyarahil, deceased in Summons in Chambers No 600606 of 2004.
Against the first Respondent, the Disciplinary Committee made a finding that all the charges against her except the seventh charge (application overruled and application by contesting party admitted) were made out. Above all, the first Respondent could not rely on her defence which she stated that her misconduct was resultant of inexperience, manipulation by her client and reliance on the wrong advice of senior practitioner Mr Mohan Das Naidu who was her master during her pupilage. The use of the corporate entity by her client who was the controlling mind and alter ego, was clearly intended to circumvent the requirement to obtain the permission of the Official Assignee to sue and to account to the Official Assignee for any recovery for the benefit of his creditors since her client was an undischarged bankrupt at the onset of the application. The circumstances in which payment out application was also questionable since which would her client be interested in having an early date just to accommodate the third Respondent’s client who were the Defendants in the suit beyond their collaborative attempt to obtain a default judgment to which the first defendant was a party to.
Against the second Respondent, the Disciplinary Committee noted that the Law Society decided not to proceed against her on the charges based on fraudulent conduct under s 83(2)(b) of the Act, or conduct involving knowingly deceiving or misleading the court under s 83(2)(j) read with r 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules. That left the alternative charges of grossly improper conduct under s 83(2)(b) of the Act and that of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the court under s 83(2)(h) or conduct amounting to failure to inform the court of all relevant decisions under s 83(2)(j) of the Act. The second Respondent admitted to the charges proceeded against her. The Disciplinary Committee concurred with the Society’s position as it was evident that the second Respondent was merely taking instructions from the first Respondent and it was the latter who had the majority of dealings with the client in question.
Finally against the third Respondent, the Disciplinary Committee made a finding that there was indeed unacceptable behaviour by way of deceit perpetrated by the third Respondent in his appearance before V K Rajah J. He failed to point out to AR Ching that the Payment Out Application should have been made in the OS and not in the Suit by the client of the first and second Respondent. He failed to point out to AR Ching that there were competing claims on the monies paid into court. He also failed to inform AR Ching of the decisions of Prakash J’s orders of 26 August 2003 and that of 23 July 2004 directing that any application for payment out should be served on all claimants. This resulted in AR Ching making an order in terms of the Payment Out Application and the dissipation of the money representing the bulk of the distributive shares of the six Sub-estates whose interest he was supposed to protect. This lead the Disciplinary Committee not to doubt that there was indeed collusion between clients of the three Respondents to the knowledge or with the connivance of the third Respondent.
The Disciplinary Committee therefore accordingly determined under s 93(1)(c) of the Act that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against all the three respondents exists under s 83 of the Act on the charges proved to our satisfaction.
Council accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee and pursuant to s 94 of the Act, applied under s 98 of the said Act for “show cause” proceedings against the Respondents under ss 83(2)(b), 83(2)(j) and 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act for having caused the Payment Out Application to be ordered through deceit and manipulation.
In Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar and Others [2009] 1 SLR 753; [2008] SGHC 169, the Coram of the Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang Boon Leong, Justice of Appeal, Chao Hick Tin and Justice Tay Yong Kwang decided on 8 October 2009 that the first Respondent and third Respondent be struck off the roll and the second Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of three years.
The Respondent submitted a plea of “no case to answer” before the charges preferred against him. Disciplinary Committee found that there is no prima facie evidence of fraud, dishonesty or deceit on the part of the Respondent to sustain any of the charges against him and proceeded to dismiss them.
The complaint against the Respondent was referred by the Inquiry Committee for retention of a sum of $50,000 received from the complainant despite failing to render any account of work done expeditiously after being reminded several times to do so. The crux of the matter was therefore whether a solicitor who has refused to refund monies to his client on the basis that the monies paid to him constituted an agreed fee as opposed to a deposit to account of his professional fees, constituted professional misconduct
The Disciplinary Committee found on the basis of several authorities that unless it is established that a solicitor, in refusing to return monies to his client, is actuated by dishonest motives or has no reasonable basis for his belief that he is entitled to retain such monies, a case of professional misconduct is not made out. In addition, the Disciplinary Committee was unable to adduce any “prima facie” evidence of fraud, dishonesty or deceit on the part of the Respondent.
Council accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee and considered the matter against the Respondent closed.