|
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 se proceedings were brought against the Respondent by the Law Society following his response to the Inquiry Committee (IC No 22/2004), which was at that material time inquiring into a complaint laid by one Loh Hock Siong (”Loh”). Loh had made the following allegations against the Respondent:
1. That the Respondent used abusive language against him;
2. That the Respondent requested him to change his residential address as soon as possible; and
3. That he was to lie that he was living away from the Respondent’s client, one Lim Tan Boey (“Lim”) for about three years to expedite the divorce proceedings between the two parties on the grounds that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
In the preparation of his response to the Inquiry Committee, the Respondent enlisted the assistance of Lim to allegedly make untrue statements to the Inquiry Committee to the effect that Lim had either instructed him or given him the impression that she had ceased having a conjugal relationship with Loh for a continuous period of three years and in doing so, the Respondent had attempted to procure from Lim, untrue statements to mislead the Inquiry Committee.
That you, Chow Weng Weng, an Advocate and Solicitor, sometime around 30 May 2004 and 3 June 2004, did attempt to procure and induce Madam Lim Tan Boey to make untrue statements to an Inquiry Committee in Inquiry Committee Proceeding Number 22 of 2004 in order to obstruct the disciplinary process and shield you from possible disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
That you, Chow Weng Weng, an Advocate and Solicitor, sometime around 30 May 2004 and 3 June 2004, did attempt to procure and induce Madam Lim Tan Boey to make untrue statements to an Inquiry Committee in Inquiry Committee Proceeding Number 22 of 2004 in order to obstruct the disciplinary process and shield you from possible disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession contrary to s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
That you, Chow Weng Weng, an Advocate and Solicitor, sometime around 30 May 2004 and 3 June 2004, did attempt to procure and induce Madam Lim Tan Boey to make statements to wit, “I also told Mr Patrick Chow that I have for many years ceased conjugal relationships with Lim Hock Siong for years”, knowing that this was untrue to an Inquiry Committee in Inquiry Committee Proceeding Number 22 of 2004 in order to obstruct the disciplinary proceedings and shield you from possible disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession contrary to s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
The Respondent entered his plea of admission to the amended alternative charge.
The gravamen of the matter before the Disciplinary Committee lay with what Lim had told the Respondent and whether it constituted an untrue statement. It was apparent from the hearing that both Lim and Loh had not been living as husband and wife for many years. Nonetheless this does not imply the cessation of a conjugal relationship in every sense of its legal definition and the truth was that the Respondent did not, when taking instructions from Lim, pose any questions to ascertain that the couple had ceased conjugal relationship to the point of effectively maintaining two households under one roof. The interpretation drawn from this was therefore obvious that without ascertaining from Lim by way of proper questions to determine whether conjugal relationships had ceased, the assertion that Lim informed him that this was so, must be construed as a lie.
The Disciplinary Committee having decided that whilst no cause for disciplinary action exists under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act that the Respondent be ordered to pay a penalty under s 93(1)(b) of the Legal
Profession Act and costs fixed at $2,000 to be paid to the Law Society for the proceedings. The penalty is to be determined by the Council of the Law Society (“Council”) under s 94(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act.
In arriving at its determination, the Disciplinary Committee took into account the following mitigating factors:
1. The willingness of the Respondent to admit to the charge even when the Committee was prepared to allow him to withdraw his pleas and challenge the Society’s case against him.
2. The Respondent had not made any attempts to prevent Lim’s retrieval of her written statement to the Inquiry Committee where she stated that “I also told Mr Patrick Chow that I have for many years ceased conjugal relationship with Loh for years. Although we resided in the same flat, we did not live as husband and wife. There were frequent quarrels between the two of us.” Lim subsequently tore up her written statement after retrieving it.
3. The aforesaid statement was never used by the Inquiry Committee at its’ hearing and in addition, despite having physical possession of Lim’s statement, the Respondent neither resisted nor tried to dissuade Lim from retrieving her statement.
4. The term “conjugal relations” being open to interpretation, a good counsel like the Respondent could have exploited this to raise reasonable doubts.
5. The Respondent had for 25 years of practice, provided pro bono services through his participation in the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.
Council accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee and imposed a penalty of $8,000 on the Respondent. The Respondent was also to pay fixed costs at $2,000 to the Society for the proceedings.
The Disciplinary Committee found the Respondent guilty of all of charges and the source of the proceedings stems from a retainer by the complainant in relation to a property development project which the Respondent had been a participant from the onset. In the subsequent disbursements from the client’s account of the complainant by one Ang, the Respondent had had put himself in a situation of potential, if not actual, conflict of interests where he had to choose whether to act in the best interests of the Complainant or of Ang and others involved in the project.
The following charges were formulated against the Respondent and were heard before the Disciplinary Committee:
That you, Uthayasurian Sidambaram, an advocate and solicitor, during the period sometime in September 2005 to 2 June 2006, acted for Satinder Singh Garcha, Pengiran Setia Negara, Pengiran Haji Mohd PSN bin Pg Haji Abd Rahim, Pengiran Haji Yura Atamaya, Louis Ang Pau Chuang, Lim Peng Lee and Langston Key Investments Ltd, in a commercial transaction namely the joint development of a property known as 7 Tanglin Hill, Singapore where a diversity of interests existed between the parties and, when accepting instructions, failed to advise and represent the said Satinder Singh Garcha of the potential conflict of interests that may arise against the other mentioned clients which is a breach of r 28 of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Act as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
That you, Uthayasurian Sidambaram, an advocate and solicitor, during the period sometime in September 2005 to 2 June 2006, acted for Satinder Singh Garcha, Pengiran Setia Negara, Pengiran Haji Mohd PSN bin Pg Haji Abd Rahim, Pengiran Haji Yura Atamaya, Louis Ang Pau Chuang, Lim Peng Lee and Langston Key Investments Ltd, in a commercial transaction namely the joint development of a property known as 7 Tanglin Hill, Singapore where a diversity of interests existed between the parties and failed, when accepting instructions, to advise and represent the said Satinder Singh Garcha of the potential conflict of interest that may arise against the other mentioned clients and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court under s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
That you, Uthayasurian Sidambaram, an advocate and solicitor, during the period from 23 May 2006 to 2 June 2006, while acting for Satinder Singh Garcha failed to advance and protect your client’s interests, to wit, you failed to advise the said Satinder Singh Garcha that Louis Ang Pau Chuang was an undischarged bankrupt who would be subject to disabilities in law and accordingly there could be potential risks as regards granting the said Louis Ang Pau Chuang unfettered authority to receive and distribute moneys a sum of $1 million held in the client account of the said Satinder Singh Garcha in the law firm Surian & Partners and you are thereby 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.
That you, Uthayasurian Sidambaram, an advocate and solicitor, during the period from 23 May 2006 to 2 June 2006, while acting for Satinder Singh Garcha failed to advance and protect your client’s interests, to wit, you failed to advise the said Satinder Singh Garcha that Louis Ang Pau Chuang was an undischarged bankrupt who would be subject to disabilities in law and accordingly there could be potential risks as regards granting the said Louis Ang Pau Chuang unfettered authority to receive and distribute moneys a sum of $1 million held in the client account of the said Satinder Singh Garcha in the law firm Surian & Partners and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court under s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
That you, Uthayasurian Sidambaram, an advocate and solicitor, during the period from 23 May 2006 to 2 June 2006, while acting for Satinder Singh Garcha failed to advance your client’s interests unfettered by your own interest and that of any other person, to wit, by acting in and preferring the interests of Louis Ang Pau Chuang and yourself by distributing client account moneys held by your firm for the said Satinder Singh Garcha by issuing three client account cheques, on 24 May 2006 to one Lim Beng Huat for a sum of $250,000, on 26 May to one Lim Beng Huat for a sum of $300,000 and on 25 May to the firm of Surian & Partners for a sum of $100,000 as legal fees for work done and services rendered to Pengiran Setia Negara, Lim Peng Lee, Langston Key Investments Ltd, Pengiran Haji Yura Atamaya and the said Louis Ang Pau Chuang and you are thereby 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.
That you, Uthayasurian Sidambaram, an advocate and solicitor, on 25 May 2006, acted in breach of r 7(1)(a)(iv) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules, to wit, by transferring client account moneys of Satinder Singh Garcha held by your firm, Surian & Partners, to the office account of your firm via a client account cheque dated 25 May 2006 in payment of your legal costs of $100,000 when no bill of costs or other written intimation of the amount of costs incurred had been delivered to the said Satinder Singh Garcha and the said Satinder Singh Garcha had not been notified that the client account moneys would be applied towards or in satisfaction of such costs, and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
On the first and alternative first charge, the Disciplinary Committee was able to adduce evidence that the Respondent did in fact act for Pengiran Setia Negara Pengiran Haji Mohammad PSN bin Pengiran Haji Abdul Rahim
(“PSN”), Pengiran Haji Yura Atamaya PSN (“Atamaya”), Louis Ang Pau Chuang (“Ang”), Lim Ping Lee (“Lim”) and Langston Key Investments Limited (“LKIL”) during the material period. The Respondent had in fact issued an
interim bill on 25 May 2006 which stated that it was for work done and services rendered to PSN, Atamaya, Ang, Lim and LKIL from September 2005 until 23 May 2006. The Disciplinary Committee did not accept that the
Respondent could reasonably have held the view that there was no conflict of interests at all, given that it is clear that each of the parties had its own respective interests in respect of the development project at Tanglin Hill.
naddition, the Respondent had failed to advise the complainant of two of the most important facts, namely that Ang was an undischarged bankrupt and that Chin Bay Ching (“Chin”) and Langston Key Investments Pte Ltd
(“LKIPL”), had earlier obtained a written guarantee and indemnity from Atamaya to protect their initial investment of $300,000 in the Project. The omission would have put the interest of others above that of his client, the
complainant. In the circumstances, the Disciplinary Committee made a finding that the Respondent was guilty of the charges.
On the second and alternative second charge, the Disciplinary Committee was of the view that the Respondent had failed to advise the complainant of the risks involved in giving unconditional and unfettered authority to
Ang to disburse the sum of $1 million as he saw fit. It should have occurred to the Respondent that Ang might use the money for his own purposes and should also have occurred to him to highlight to the Complainant the legal disabilities faced by a bankrupt. The advice was necessary to enable the Complainant to make an informed decision as to whether he should nevertheless authorise and allow Ang to disburse the money “as he deems fit on my behalf”. The Disciplinary Committee, therefore, finds the Respondent’s conduct in this regard to be in dereliction of his duty to advance and protect the Complainant’s
interests and guilty of the second and second alternative charge.
As for the third charge, the Disciplinary Committee found that given the suspicions and his knowledge that Ang was an undischarged bankrupt, the Respondent should not have merely relied on Ang’s statement and the writtenauthorisation concerning the request to pay such a substantial sum to a person who was Ang’s friend and driver and who had no apparent involvement in the project. In addition, the Respondent should have called the Complainant and asked him to verify the request to pay to Lim Beng Huat. In all, the Disciplinary Committee found that the Respondent acted and preferred his own interests and those of others in respect of his conduct relating to the payment of the sums of $250,000 and $300,000 to Lim Beng Huat as well as the sum of $100,000 to his own firm and that he failed to advance the Complainant’s interests unfettered by his own interests and those of Ang and accordingly guilty under the third charge.
Finally for the fourth charge, the Disciplinary Committee found that the respondent had breached the rule which makes it mandatory for the solicitor to send to the client his bill of costs or issue any other written notice to the client concerning the amount that he proposes to bill for work done before transferring the amount from the client account and by his failure to do so, guilty of the fourth charge. 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 ss 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act for having contravened r 28 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and Rule 7(1)(a)(iv) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules.
In Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian Sidambaram [2009] SGHC 184, 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 13
August 2009 that the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of one year.