Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer who focused on molestation victim's breast size suspended for 5 years​

Lawyer Edmund Wong Sin Yee had defended a 24-year-old student from China who was accused of brushing his forearm against the breast of a 22-year-old woman on board an MRT train in July 2014. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Law Correspondent
UPDATED

MAY 3, 2018

SINGAPORE - A controversial lawyer who went on a "demeaning" line of questioning of a molestation victim, including staring at her breasts, was suspended for the maximum of five years on Wednesday (May 2) for professional misconduct.
The Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, had harsh words for Mr Edmund Wong Sin Yee's "disgraceful" conduct and his "irrelevant and wholly impermissible" line of questioning, which Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon noted had the purpose of humiliating the victim.
To this day, Mr Wong, who was not present in court, maintains he had not done anything wrong, which the court said weighed against him.
"It is extremely difficult to reform one who does not appreciate the error of his ways," said the Chief Justice.
Mr Wong, who runs his own firm S Y Wong Law Chambers, had defended a 24-year-old student from China who was accused of brushing his forearm against the breast of a 22-year-old woman on board an MRT train in July 2014.
While he was cross-examining the victim during the trial in 2015, Mr Wong repeatedly asked the woman if she thought she was attractive and told her that he thought she was pretty.
He then commanded her to stand up and scrutinised her chest.

The victim, feeling offended, asked if this was necessary. Mr Wong retorted that he would be asking even more insulting questions.
When the district judge intervened, Mr Wong sought to justify his line of questioning.
"So I'm trying to put my case that, you know, looking at the day (how) she was dressed and... her breast size and all these things... whether there is temptation for anybody or the accused to do such a thing," he said.


Xu Jiadong was found guilty and jailed for five months by the district judge, who dedicated six pages of his grounds of decision to Mr Wong's "unacceptable" cross-examination.
The Attorney-General's Chambers lodged a complaint with the Law Society.
A disciplinary tribunal found Mr Wong's offensive line of questioning had breached professional conduct rules. The case was referred to the court, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.
On Wednesday, his lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, said Mr Wong's focus on attractiveness was aimed at advancing the case that the woman was such a "plain Jane" that the accused had not even noticed her.
The argument did not go down well with the court.
"Are we in the business of beauty contests?" asked Chief Justice Menon.
Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash asked where he had got the idea that only attractive women were molested. She added it was not for Mr Wong to assess the victim's attractiveness but for his client to say so in his testimony.
Judge of Appeal Steven Chong questioned if anyone accused of molestation had ever successfully defended themselves by proving that the victim was "not sufficiently attractive" to be molested.
Mr Wong, who was called to the Bar in 1998, has a long list of past convictions going back more than 20 years. This includes incidents of violence, drug consumption, and abuse of public servants. He was also detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) between 2005 and 2012. He resumed practising law three years after his release.
The court said the totality of his conduct showed he had "no meaningful appreciation" of how a lawyer should conduct himself.
Although the question was raised as to whether he was fit to practise law, the judges said they had not struck him off the rolls as many of his violent antecedents were "somewhat dated".
The suspension takes effect in two weeks.
The court will issue detailed written grounds for its decision at a later date.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer suspended 3 years for conflict of interest when he favoured one client over another​

Selina Lum
Law Correspondent


JAN 18, 2019

SINGAPORE - A lawyer, who acted for two clients with conflicting interests and ended up favouring one over the other, was on Thursday (Jan 17) suspended from practising for three years.
Mr Peter Ezekiel had acted for both an employer and an employee who were charged with falsely declaring to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) that the latter's salary was $1,800, when it was in fact $1,200.
The employee had told Mr Ezekiel, 49, that he had been deceived by the employer and that he had genuinely believed his salary was $1,800.
But the lawyer did not convey this to the Attorney-General's Chambers in written representations.
The employee, an Indian national who worked as a performing artist at a Dunlop Street pub, discharged Mr Ezekiel and lodged a complaint to the Law Society.
He was fined $6,000 after deciding to plead guilty as he did not want to remain in Singapore to fight the case.
An independent disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Ezekiel had not advanced the employee's allegations because it would have affected the interests of the employer, who had hired him first before she recommended him to the employee.

​

The tribunal concluded that Mr Ezekiel's failure to act in the best interest of the employee amounted to improper conduct and imposed a $3,000 fine.
However, the Law Society disagreed with this conclusion.
Mr M.P. Rai, representing the society, argued before the Court of Three Judges on Thursday that Mr Ezekiel's actions were serious and amounted to grossly improper conduct which warranted a suspension.

Mr Rai told the court that in September 2014 when the employee signed the work permit application stating his salary as $1,800, he believed that was what he would be paid.
Shortly after, MOM raided the pub, and his employer told him to sign a salary voucher for $1,200. It was then that he found out his salary was $1,200.
By then, he had no choice but to accept the employer's explanation that she would deduct $600 for accommodation, airfare and food.
Mr Rai argued that Mr Ezekiel, who has been a lawyer for 21 years, had a duty to present these facts to the AGC .
"Instead, he advanced the employer's interest at the expense of the complainant, thereby causing an innocent person to be convicted for a criminal offence when he had a credible defence."
Mr Ezekiel's lawyer, Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam, said his client accepted that there was a conflict of interest and he should not have continued to act for both.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and Justice Belinda Ang, agreed with Mr Rai and imposed a three-year suspension.
Detailed written reasons will be issued later.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Suspended lawyer Edmund Wong fined for obstructing police officer from carrying out his duties​

In 2018, Edmund Wong had been suspended for five years for professional misconduct. PHOTO: ST FILE

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent


MAY 5, 2021

SINGAPORE - A lawyer who was suspended for the maximum of five years in 2018 over professional misconduct was back in a district court on Wednesday (May 5) after he committed an unrelated offence - hindering police work.
For obstructing a policeman from carrying out his duties in 2017, Wong Sin Yee, better known as Edmund Wong, was fined $2,000.
On Wednesday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Foo Shi Hao told the court that Deputy Superintendent Chu Weng Kong had led an operation with his colleagues at a back lane between Lorong 14 and Lorong 16 Geylang at around 9pm on Jan 13 that year.
The officers detained about 10 people suspected of being secret society members. Wong arrived at around 10pm and was seen loitering near the detainees.
DSP Chu approached him and asked if he was a police officer. In response, Wong yelled at DSP Chu and said he was "bigger" than a police officer.
DPP Foo added: "DSP Chu then asked the accused what he meant, and the accused shouted that he is an officer from the Supreme Court, and therefore DSP Chu had to address the accused as 'sir'.
"The accused's shouting attracted the attention of some of the suspects as well as various members of the public."

Another policeman then approached Wong to ascertain his identity. Soon after, DSP Chu told Wong the police were in the midst of an operation and that he was hindering it.
Wong was arrested after he refused to leave when asked.
A year later, in 2018, Wong was suspended for five years for professional misconduct after he went on a "demeaning" line of questioning of a molestation victim during a trial in 2015. He also committed acts such as staring at the woman's breasts.
The Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, had harsh words for Wong's "disgraceful" conduct and his "irrelevant and wholly impermissible" line of questioning, which Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon noted was intended to humiliate the victim.
Separately, Wong had earlier been accused of another offence - intentionally perverting the course of justice by filing a false statement in relation to the defence of an alleged drug offender.
Wong had been accused of committing the offence some time on or before Dec 11, 2015, and the statement purportedly said the female accused's "urine is found to contain methamphetamine due to contamination from medical (sic) she took".
The statement was alleged to have originated from Wong, not the woman, and he had no basis to believe that it was true.

On Wednesday, the court heard that Wong had been given a stern warning over this charge, which was then withdrawn.
Senior District Judge Bala Reddy granted Wong a discharge amounting to an acquittal over the charge. This means that Wong cannot be charged again with the same offence.
For obstructing a police officer from carrying out his duties, he could have been jailed for up to three months and fined up to $2,500.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Boon Tat Street death: Lawyer for victim's mistress suspended for 2 years after widow's complaint​

Mr Spencer Tuppani was stabbed in the chest at Boon Tat Street on July 10, 2017. His lawyer Mahtani Bhagwandas was suspended for misconduct on May 14, 2021. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Law Correspondent


MAY 14, 2021

SINGAPORE - After her estranged husband was killed by her father in broad daylight, a woman turned to a lawyer, who had acted for her spouse in their impending divorce, for help with estate matters.
Ms Shyller Tan's husband, businessman Spencer Tuppani, 39, was stabbed in the chest on July 10, 2017, and collapsed in Boon Tat Street in front of a lunchtime crowd.
Her father, Tan Nam Seng, 73, was unhappy with how the younger man had treated his daughter and believed that his son-in-law was trying to cheat him of his business.
Mr Tuppani died without leaving a will and Ms Tan, 46, turned to his lawyer, Mr Mahtani Bhagwandas, for help because of his knowledge of her husband's assets.
Mr Mahtani agreed to help Ms Tan without disclosing that he was acting for an opposing party - Mr Tuppani's long-time mistress Joan Yeo, who later made a $3.4 million claim against his estate.
Ms Tan, who was unaware of the conflict of interest, was misled into revealing confidential information about her husband's assets to the lawyer.
She lodged a complaint to the Law Society against Mr Mahtani on May 22, 2019.

​

On Friday (May 14), Mr Mahtani was suspended from practice for two years by the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body here for the legal profession.
A disciplinary tribunal had referred Mr Mahtani to the court to be punished after finding him guilty of two misconduct charges last year.
One charge was for accepting to represent Ms Yeo in her claim against the estate, despite having acquired confidential information about Mr Tuppani's assets while engaged as his lawyer.


The other charge was for failing to make a timely disclosure to Ms Tan about his conflict of interest, which resulted in her revealing confidential information.
According to the tribunal's report, days after the fatal stabbing, Ms Yeo met Mr Mahtani to seek advice on a Toyota Alphard that was in Mr Tuppani's name but bought with her funds, as well as about the recovery of loans she had made to him.

Mr Spencer Tuppani was stabbed in the chest at Boon Tat Street on July 10, 2017. His lawyer Mahtani Bhagwandas was suspended for misconduct on May 14, 2021. PHOTOS: ST FILE, SPENCER TUPPANI/FACEBOOK
Mr Mahtani was formally appointed to represent Ms Yeo on Aug 8, 2017.
He also met Ms Tan, who shared with him information about Mr Tuppani's assets. On Aug 19, 2017, Ms Tan asked Mr Mahtani in a text message if he could help with the estate, and he replied that he definitely could.
Ms Tan said she later questioned if he was acting in her best interest when he tried to discourage her from litigating with Ms Yeo.

She broke off contact with Mr Mahtani after she learnt from a letter from his firm on Nov 24, 2017 that he was acting for Ms Yeo.
Mr Mahtani denied that he had agreed to act for the estate. He said he had told Ms Tan that he was acting for Ms Yeo.
He said she did not protest against the conflict of interest until the estate filed its defence in a lawsuit brought by Ms Yeo in 2019.
The tribunal rejected Mr Mahtani's account, saying that Ms Tan would not have confided in him if she had known he was acting for Ms Yeo, as there was "no love lost" between the two women.
Separately, Mr Tuppani's mother, Madam Tham Poh Kwai, has sued Tan Nam Seng, seeking more than $5,000 a month in damages and losses.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Disciplinary tribunal dismisses Parti Liyani's complaint against 2 DPPs over DVD player​

Former domestic worker Parti Liyan had filed a suit against two deputy public prosecutors in 2020. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent


MAR 16, 2022

SINGAPORE - A disciplinary tribunal has dismissed a complaint brought by former domestic worker Parti Liyani, who alleged that the two prosecutors conducting her trial had created a false impression that a DVD player was "fully functional".
In grounds of decision dated March 10, the two-member tribunal said it found no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against Ms Tan Yanying and Mr Tan Wee Hao exists under the Legal Profession Act.
The tribunal also found that the prosecutors' demonstration of the DVD player during her trial was conducted openly and fairly.
In hindsight, said the tribunal, more could have been done during the trial to ascertain the condition of the device, which could record and play videos but could not play DVDs.
The tribunal, comprising Senior Judge Chao Hick Tin and senior lawyer Patrick Ang, made no order as to legal costs.
Ms Parti, 48, was acquitted of stealing from the family of her former employer, prominent businessman Liew Mun Leong, on appeal to the High Court in September 2020.
The High Court found that reasonable doubt had been raised and overturned her conviction on four theft charges relating to $34,000 worth of items.

The case stirred public discussion and led to a nine-hour parliamentary debate over Singapore's criminal justice system.
In June that year, before her acquittal, Ms Parti filed a complaint against the two deputy public prosecutors (DPP) who conducted her district court trial.
The complaint centred on a DVD player, which was among the things she was accused of stealing.

The functionality of the device became a side issue because Ms Parti said that she was allowed to take the DVD player as it was "spoilt" and "broken".
But Mr Liew's wife, Madam Ng Lai Peng, testified that it was working and that she never consented to the maid taking it away.
During the trial in 2018, the prosecutors tested the device in court and showed that it could play a video digitally stored in the hard disk.
When Ms Parti's lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, tried to play a disc, error messages "could not initialise disc" and "incompatible and unreadable disc" were displayed.

In October 2020, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon gave the green light for a disciplinary tribunal to be appointed to investigate Ms Parti's complaint.
The hearing was held in September last year, with Ms Parti testifying via video link from Indonesia.
The crux of her complaint was that the prosecutors knew, or had reason to believe, that the device was not fully functional but failed to disclose this to the court.
In her defence, Ms Tan said that her understanding of the case was on the basis that the DVD player was either working or not working.
The thought of the device being partially working was not in her mind at all, contended Ms Tan.
She said that when she tested the device, she could not play the disc that was inside. She then pressed some buttons and the player started playing recorded video footage.
Ms Tan said that once she realised the device could play images from the hard disk, she was satisfied that it was working and hence, she could rebut Ms Parti's claim that the player was "spoilt".
Likewise, Mr Tan said he understood that the term "spoilt" meant "not working".
Both prosecutors said they thought the disc could not be played because it was faulty.

The disciplinary tribunal said the question that arises is whether the prosecutors had knowingly misled the court as to the functionality of the DVD player.
"Having deliberated long and hard over it, we find it difficult to fault the respondents for thinking that the device was working as demonstrated even though they could not play the... disc," said the tribunal.
The tribunal said that just because the device could not play the two discs used in the demonstrations did not necessarily mean that the problem lay with the player.
The error messages could reasonably mean that the discs were problematic, it noted.
The tribunal added that Ms Parti was not misled as to the state of the device because in her mind, "spoilt" and "broken" meant that the player could not work at all.
The tribunal noted that Mr Balchandani also initially believed that the device was not working at all, only to realise later that it had dual functions.
In hindsight, said the tribunal, it could be argued that the two prosecutors should have done more in ascertaining the condition of the device.

Even the defence, which was contending that the device was spoilt, "did not have the conviction or foresight to request the court to direct that the device be examined by an expert", said the tribunal.
An expert report from the manufacturer in October 2020 stated that the "DVD loader mechanism was likely to be defective".
The report stated that video and audio could be recorded on the hard disk and played back.
The expert also explained that the error messages meant that "generally the disc loaded could be faulty or wrong type or recorder is defective".
A spokesman for the Attorney-General’s Chambers said the DPPs “were appreciative of the opportunity to present a full and transparent account of what transpired during the trial”.
Mr Balchandani thanked law firm Peter Low & Choo for its “selfless work” in acting for Ms Parti in the proceedings.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

M. Ravi guilty of improper conduct over posts, letter, by tribunal​

A disciplinary tribunal recommended Mr M. Ravi to pay $6,000 in penalties for the three charges and a further $3,000 in costs. PHOTO: ST FILE

K.C. Vijayan
Senior Law Correspondent

FEB 28, 2022

SINGAPORE - Activist lawyer M. Ravi, whose successful court application spared a death row inmate from the gallows, has been found guilty of improper conduct in three out of four charges arising from statements he made and a letter he wrote following the 2020 case.
A disciplinary tribunal comprising Senior Counsel and ex-Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh and senior lawyer Philip Ling, which probed the charges, recommended he pay $6,000 in penalties for the three charges and a further $3,000 in costs.
But the tribunal cleared him of the first of the four charges, of making false or misleading statements to discredit the Attorney General's Chambers and its legal officers in the eyes of the public, over interview remarks he had made to the Online Citizen Asia on Oct 19, 2020. The tribunal held these as "fair criticism."
Mr Ravi had claimed the public prosecutor was 'overzealous' in his prosecution of the case against the death row inmate. He had also raised the observation by the apex court that the public prosecutor ran a different case in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which he said called into issue the fairness of the administration of justice in the case.
"With all due respect... nowhere in the Interview Statements did (Mr Ravi) explicitly accuse the Prosecution of having acted in bad faith, maliciously or improperly, and we accept that (he) also did not implicitly convey, or intend or seek to convey, any such meaning or message either in making the Interview Statements," said the tribunal in its report released earlier this month.
The lawyer had acted for Gobi Avedian, 32, an inmate on death row who was spared the gallows for drug offences on Oct 19, 2020, after a five-judge Court of Appeal headed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon reviewed and overturned an earlier decision by the same court.
Gobi was instead sentenced to 15 years' jail and 10 strokes of the cane, with the sentence backdated to the date of his remand.

The tribunal had been appointed by the Chief Justice to probe Mr Ravi's conduct following a complaint by the Attorney-General to the Law Society in October 2020. The four charges were laid out under the Legal Profession Act as well as the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
Two of the three remaining charges of improper conduct against Mr Ravi related to baseless statements reflecting misconduct that were posted on his Facebook page on Oct 20, 2020.
The fourth charge related to a letter he sent to the AGC threatening to commence legal proceedings against prosecutors involved in his case for Gobi, as well as other key officers.
WongPartnership lawyers Wendy Lin and Titus Teo prosecuted the case for the Law Society while Mr Ravi represented himself at the hearings last July.
The tribunal found him guilty of improper conduct in the three charges based on the Legal Profession Act.
The tribunal in its judgment grounds referred, among other things, to the observations made on the Professional Conduct Rules by Senior Counsel Jeffrey Pinsler in his book, Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 - A Commentary, as cited by the Law Society.
"A lawyer's duty as a professional also requires him to act responsibly when he makes a complaint, or represents a client who wishes to make a complaint, concerning the alleged misconduct of another lawyer. The complaint must be substantiated and properly communicated to the Law Society," wrote Mr Pinsler.
The tribunal also agreed with the Law Society that in making the Facebook statements, Mr Ravi had failed to abide by The Law Society's Practice Direction, which forbids lawyers representing parties in legal proceedings from making inappropriate comments or improper disclosures in relation to the proceedings via various platforms.

The tribunal recommended he pay a collective penalty of $4,000 for the second and fourth charge and another $2,000 for the third charge.
It took into account mitigating circumstances highlighted by Mr Ravi that if not for his representation of Gobi in the review proceedings, which culminated in the Court of Appeal's review judgment, Gobi would have been executed and there would have been a grave miscarriage of justice. It accepted this.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Reform Party chairman Charles Yeo arrested for alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery​

Mr Charles Yeo said in a Facebook post that a bail of $35,000 had been set for his release. PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM CHARLES YEO/FACEBOOK

Justin Ong
Political Correspondent


JAN 15, 2022

SINGAPORE - Mr Charles Yeo, chairman of the opposition Reform Party, was arrested on Wednesday (Jan 12) for alleged involvement in criminal breach of trust and forgery, said the police on Saturday (Jan 15).
In a statement, the police added that they "categorically reject" claims made by Mr Yeo that investigations against him were "politically motivated".
"Neither are the allegations 'trumped up' for political reasons," said the police.
Earlier this week, Mr Yeo claimed on his social media accounts that he had spent 15 hours in lock-up on "trumped up and false" charges.
He also accused the police of acting unprofessionally and said it was unusual that his phone and SIM card had been taken.
The police on Saturday confirmed that investigations were ongoing against Whitefield Law Corporation, where Mr Yeo works as a criminal defence lawyer.
Aside from Mr Yeo, another person - not identified by the police - was arrested on Wednesday after police reports were made against the law firm.

​

"The police had received at least four police reports involving four different clients of Whitefield Law Corporation, alleging forgery and/or criminal breach of trust," the police said.
"For the purpose of the investigations, Mr Charles Yeo's mobile telephone and SIM card were seized for forensic examination. The seizure was done in accordance with powers given to the police under the Criminal Procedure Code."
The police added that its officers have taken and will continue to take measures in accordance with the law to carry out investigations into the alleged criminal offences.
Mr Yeo was part of a Reform Party team that contested Ang Mo Kio GRC at the 2020 General Election, garnering 28.09 per cent of the votes as it lost to a People's Action Party slate led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Mr Yeo had drawn attention during the hustings after clips of him struggling to deliver a speech for his party in Mandarin went viral online.
He said in a Facebook post on Thursday that a bail of $35,000 had been set for his release.
If convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Penal Code, he could face imprisonment of up to 20 years, in addition to a fine.
The offence of forgery under Section 465 of the Penal Code carries a maximum jail term of four years and/or a fine.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Some Bar exam candidates speak of lax rules as 5 more trainee lawyers found to have cheated​

Source: TODAY
Article Date: 20 Apr 2022
Author: Daryl Choo
In 2020, candidates took the Part B Bar examination sat for it at home due to Covid-19 and some of them said there was no requirement to turn on their web cameras to show that they were not communicating with others.

• AGC said that five more trainee lawyers had been caught cheating during their Bar exams in 2020
• This brings the number who have cheated to 11
• Some lawyers who took the same exam that year said that lax rules made it easy for candidates to cheat
• One lawyer said that it was "not unheard of" for people to ask their friends for help during the exams
• The Singapore Institute of Legal Education has since tightened its rules around the Part B exams, a law trainee said

Lawyers who took the Bar examinations in 2020 said that the lax rules made it easy for candidates to cheat, as the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said on Tuesday (April 19) that five more trainees lawyers had been caught cheating during the exams that year.

This came a day after a High Court judgement revealed that six trainee lawyers had their court hearings for admissions to the Bar delayed by six months to a year because they had cheated during the Bar exams, bringing the number who had cheated up to 11.

The postponement of the court hearings, however, does not mean that they will be automatically admitted to the Bar afterwards.

AGC said that after the adjournment, those who had cheated will have to file an affidavit showing why he or she is a “fit and proper person” to be admitted to the Bar — meaning they can practise as lawyers — as of the date of that affidavit.

“The Attorney-General (AG) takes the view that, in all cases where applicants had cheated on the Bar examinations, such applicants would not be fit and proper persons to be admitted as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore at this point in time," AGC said.

This is because their misconduct showed that they "did not embody the key qualities of honesty and integrity that every lawyer must possess".

AGC added that last Wednesday's admissions hearing was the first time the AG had objected to an applicant being called to the Bar.

The AG is considering the applications of the five other trainees who cheated in the 2020 Part B examinations.

LAX RULES

Two lawyers who took the Part B exams in late-2020 — both requested anonymity — told TODAY that although the Covid-19 pandemic forced the exams to be held virtually, there were few rules in place that prevented examinees from cheating.

Throughout the eight days of tests, candidates sat for the exam from home.

They would be given a password-protected document containing the exam questions and were told to type their answers on a word document and submit it online within a set time, they said.

There was no requirement to turn on their web cameras to show that they were not communicating with others and they did not have to download any examination software such as those that locked their computers from accessing messaging applications, they added.

One of the two, a 26-year-old who now practises law in an international firm, said: “It was frankly not unheard of for people to text their friends here and there for questions they didn’t know how to fully handle.

“I didn't hear of anyone asking for answers to entire papers, but for smaller questions here and there, yes.”

The other lawyer, 36, said that the lax rules meant that candidates could, in theory, even take the exam in the same room without the examiners finding out.

Like previous Part B exams, the one held in 2020 was an open-book exam, meaning that candidates were allowed to refer to notes and other materials.

Beyond putting their career at risk, the lawyer said that he did not think it was a very smart idea to cheat given how little time they had to complete each paper.

“Every second you take to communicate with people, you are better off trying to formulate your own answer,” he said.

Since then, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, the organisation that administers the Bar exams, gradually began rolling out stricter rules.

The 26-year-old lawyer said that when she had to retake one paper in March last year, she was made to install a software that locked the computer’s access to communications apps and internet access during the test.

“They tried to rectify it slightly,” she said. “But still, no webcam.”

By late last year, however, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education had implemented a series of measures to curb cheating during the exams, which were still being held virtually.

A 24-year-old trainee lawyer who took the Part B exam in December last year said that she had to use her webcam to take a 360-degree view of her room via the exam software. She also requested anonymity.

Using the webcam, she also had to show what was on her table, under her table, the notes she had with her, as well as show herself switching off her phone and placing it in a clear container.

Although the software cuts off access to the internet once the exam starts, she believed that the software would continue taking a video of candidates throughout the paper to ensure that they were not cheating.

TODAY has contacted the Singapore Institute of Legal Education for comment.

'MERE SLAP ON THE WRIST'

Five of the law graduates who shared answers through WhatsApp had their admissions hearing postponed by six months. One of them, who denied any wrongdoing and protested her innocence at first, had hers adjourned by a year.

They have all since retaken and passed the required exams but will have to wait until the adjournment is over before their applications are heard again.

They will be called to the Bar only when their applications are accepted by the AG, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc), and after filing an affidavit proving that they are fit to be a practising lawyer.

In response to TODAY’s queries, LawSoc said that it does not have the authority to penalise trainees, because they fall outside the scope of its statutory powers.

Besides the 26-year-old lawyer, those who spoke to TODAY said that they have not heard of any trainees who have cheated in their Bar exams until the latest incidents were revealed this week.

The 36-year-old lawyer said: “A good number of us lawyers feel that the adjournment of their Bar admissions hearing is a mere slap on the wrist.

"To some extent, it tarnishes the reputation of the rest of the legal fraternity who passed the exams fairly.”

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyers for Malaysian drug trafficker ordered to pay $20,000 for incurring unnecessary costs​

The court has the power to order personal costs against a lawyer who causes the incurring of unnecessary costs. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

May 25, 2022

SINGAPORE - The two lawyers who acted for Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam in a last-ditch attempt to halt his execution were on Wednesday (May 25) ordered to pay $20,000 in costs to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
Mr M. Ravi, who did most of the work, was ordered by the Court of Appeal to bear 75 per cent of the costs, while Ms Violet Netto, who later took over as the lawyer on record, was held liable for 25 per cent.
The AGC had originally sought personal costs totalling $40,000 against Mr Ravi and Ms Netto for setting out to delay Nagaenthran's execution by filing unmeritorious applications, which caused it to incur unnecessary costs.
Under the law, the court has the power to order personal costs against a lawyer who causes the incurring of unnecessary costs by acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently.
On Wednesday, a five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said it would be apparent to any reasonable defence counsel that the case advanced by the duo lacked factual basis.
The court reiterated that the way the case had been conducted was a blatant and egregious abuse of the court process.
Instead of putting their best case forward at the first instance, the lawyers "drip fed" the supposed evidence and tendered documents at the last possible moment, said the court.

The court also rejected Mr Ravi's argument that he and Ms Netto cannot be made to pay personal costs as they are no longer practising lawyers.
Nagaenthran was convicted of trafficking 42.72g of heroin in 2010 and given the mandatory death penalty. His appeals against his conviction and sentence were dismissed in 2011.
Over the years, Nagaenthran filed a total of seven applications to challenge his death sentence.

Days before he was scheduled to be hanged on Nov 10 last year, Mr Ravi filed an applicaton seeking judicial review of the impending execution.
Mr Ravi also filed another application, asking for a stay of execution for Nagaenthran to be assessed by a panel of psychiatrists.
The main argument was that the death sentence could not be carried out because Nagaenthran was mentally disabled.
The case was argued by Ms Netto, assisted by Mr Ravi, before the apex court on March 1.

On March 29, the court dismissed the legal actions, saying that the case was baseless and that there was no admissible evidence of any decline in Nagaenthran's mental condition.
The court said the proceedings brought by Nagaenthran amounted to an abuse of the court's processes and had been conducted with seeming aim of delaying his execution.
On April 26, a last-minute application by Nagaenthran's mother to halt his rescheduled execution was dismissed by the court.
He was hanged at Changi Prison Complex on April 27.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean to be charged in court with criminal breach of trust, unlawful stalking​

Lim Tean is alleged to have misappropriated $30,000 that was awarded to a former client, among other charges. PHOTO: ST FILE

Dominic Low

MAY 10, 2022

SINGAPORE - Lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean will be charged in court on Thursday (May 12) with criminal breach of trust, unlawful stalking and acting as an advocate or solicitor without a valid practising certificate.
He is alleged to have misappropriated $30,000 that was awarded to a former client as settlement with respect to a motor injury civil suit and entrusted to him in November 2019, said the police in a statement on Tuesday.
The unlawful stalking charge relates to his alleged harassment of a former employee in 2020, while she was working at his law firm, Carson Law Chambers.
And he purportedly acted as an advocate or solicitor without a valid practising certificate on 66 separate occasions between April 1 and June 9 last year.
The police also said investigations against Mr Lim for other matters are ongoing.
Shortly after the police statement was issued on Tuesday, Mr Lim posted a seven-minute video on his Facebook page, in which he disputed the charges.
Mr Lim is the founder of political party Peoples Voice (PV), which contested Jalan Besar and Pasir-Punggol GRCs as well as the Mountbatten SMC in the 2020 General Election.

But the party failed to win any seats. The PV team in Jalan Besar - which Mr Lim headed - clinched only 34.64 per cent of the votes, losing to the People’s Action Party (PAP) team led by current Minister for Communications and Information Josephine Teo.
The PV team also lost the three-way fight in Pasir-Punggol GRC, receiving the lowest share of votes at 12.17 per cent. PAP won with 64.16 per cent of the votes, while Singapore Democratic Alliance received 23.67 per cent of the votes.
Mr Sivakumaran Chellappa, the PV candidate contesting Mountbatten SMC, lost to PAP’s Lim Biow Chuan, who won 73.82 per cent of the votes.
If guilty of criminal breach of trust, Mr Lim can be punished with life imprisonment or jail of up to 20 years and a fine.
He can also be jailed for up to a year, or fined up to $5,000, or face both penalties, if found guilty of unlawful stalking.
If guilty of being an unauthorised person acting as an advocate or solicitor, Mr Lim can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to $25,000, or both.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer suspended 5 years for 'lackadaisical' conduct that caused client to lose case​

Lawyer Ooi Oon Tat had failed to provide certain documents requested by the opposing side. PHOTO: OOI OON TAT/FACEBOOK

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent


JUL 1, 2022

SINGAPORE - As a result of his lawyer's "inaction and lackadaisical conduct", what should have been a court victory for a taxi driver who was injured in an accident turned into a complete defeat.
The lawyer, Mr Ooi Oon Tat, who was called to the Bar in 1989, had failed to provide certain documents requested by the opposing side, which ultimately resulted in his client's lawsuit being struck out.
On Friday (July 1), Mr Ooi was suspended for five years for his misconduct.
In suspending him, the Court of Three Judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said this was a deplorable case of a lawyer who was in "grave dereliction of duty to his client".
The court said Mr Ooi effectively destroyed his client's cause of action by failing to act on his client's instructions and to provide the documents and failing to make good any of the loss suffered by his client.
The client, cabby Lim See Meng, had sued the driver of a vehicle that crashed into the rear of his taxi in 2012 for causing him to suffer chest discomfort and pain in the neck and ribs.
In November 2015, Mr Lim succeeded in obtaining an interlocutory judgment in which the defendant accepted full responsibility for the accident.

The quantum of damages were to be assessed at a later hearing.
In June 2016, the defendant, Mr Chong Chun Siong, sought certain documents from Mr Lim.
Mr Lim provided some documents to Mr Ooi and reminded him by e-mail to expedite the matter.

But Mr Ooi did not send out those documents to Mr Chong's lawyers, even after his counterparts obtained a court order for him to do so.
In January 2017, dissatisfied with how Mr Ooi was handling the suit, Mr Lim got another lawyer to take over the case.
He then found out that the suit had been struck out.
Mr Lim then sued Mr Ooi for professional negligence.

In September last year, Mr Ooi was found liable to Mr Lim for damages of nearly $73,000 and costs of $15,000. He has yet to pay the sums.
Mr Lim also lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Mr Ooi.
In December last year, a disciplinary tribunal found Mr Ooi guilty of three misconduct charges.
The tribunal said Mr Ooi's "inaction and lackadaisical conduct" brought dishonour to the profession.
On Friday, the Law Society, represented by Mr Adrian Wong, brought the case before the court, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.
Mr Ooi pleaded with it to impose a fine instead.
The court said: "The suggestion that a fine might be an appropriate sanction in this case reflected an utter failure on the respondent's part to acknowledge the gravity of the misconduct on his part, and for that matter of the degree of harm he had caused his own client."
The court noted that Mr Ooi has an antecedent for having failed to deposit client monies into the appropriate account.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow struck off for abusing employees​

Samuel Seow flew into a rage in his office in 2018, an incident which was caught on video and circulated on social media. PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG, SCREENGRAB FROM YOUTUBE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent
UPDATED

MAY 18, 2022

SINGAPORE - Entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow Theng Beng, who physically and verbally abused three employees over a one-month period in 2018, was struck off the rolls on Wednesday (May 18).
In a written judgment, the Court of Three Judges said a striking off was warranted as Seow’s conduct demonstrated a character defect rendering him unfit to be a member of the legal profession.
The court, which is the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, said Seow’s behaviour was egregious and “evinced such volatility and lack of self-control that it detracts from his ability to discharge his professional functions”.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Andrew Phang and Steven Chong, added that Seow's conduct had caused grave dishonour to the standing of the profession.
Seow, 49, had admitted before a disciplinary tribunal in 2019 to eight instances of professional misconduct involving three women employees at his office in South Bridge Road between March 16, 2018, and April 17, 2018.
A 30-minute audio recording of the incident on April 17, 2018, was circulated online that year, while two leaked video clips from that day were uploaded on YouTube and went viral in April 2019.
Seow, who was known for representing celebrities, ran his firm Samuel Seow Law Corporation as well as his talent management company Beam Artistes from the office.

Five of the charges related to his “intemperate and boorish conduct” towards Ms Rachel Kang Pei Shan, an artiste and events executive, between March 16, 2018, and April 3, 2018.
They involved throwing files, boxes, a metal stapler and a wallet in her direction, shouting at her aggressively and threatening to take a knife to kill her.
The other three charges related to acts of violence on April 17, 2018, against Ms Kang; Ms Brenda Kong Shin Ying, a lawyer who is also Seow's niece; and Ms Serene Tan Tzuu Yen, a secretary and conveyancing executive.

Seow first jabbed Ms Kang’s forehead with his finger and pushed the files that she was holding against her chest.
He then grabbed Ms Kong’s arms, pushed her against a table, repeatedly slapped her, jabbed his finger at her forehead, and pushed her such that she fell backwards.
Seow then pushed Ms Tan to the floor. He also aggressively berated Ms Kong and Ms Tan.



In March 2020, a two-member disciplinary tribunal found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for Seow to be sanctioned by the court, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.
In February this year, the Law Society of Singapore urged the court to impose a striking off.
On Wednesday, the court said it was plain that the eight instances were not isolated incidents.
Other employees testified before the disciplinary tribunal that Seow “was a temperamental man who was prone to bouts of extreme emotion”, and that shouting and

Criminal charges were also filed against Seow over some of the incidents.
In July 2020, he pleaded guilty in court to one count each of assaulting Ms Kong and using criminal force on Ms Kang.
Two other charges, one for harassment and one for using criminal force, will be considered during sentencing.
Law Society president Adrian Tan told The Straits Times: “In this day and age, law firm culture must be a safe space that provides mental wellness.
“Senior lawyers must be role models in how they treat subordinates, so that they thrive.”
Mr Tan said the society will not tolerate any lawyer who abuses or bullies juniors or employees, and that the legal profession will continue to hold itself to the highest personal standards, in court and outside court.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyers for Malaysian drug trafficker ordered to pay $20,000 for incurring unnecessary costs​

The court has the power to order personal costs against a lawyer who causes the incurring of unnecessary costs. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent


MAY 25, 2022

SINGAPORE - The two lawyers who acted for Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam in a last-ditch attempt to halt his execution were on Wednesday (May 25) ordered to pay $20,000 in costs to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
Mr M. Ravi, who did most of the work, was ordered by the Court of Appeal to bear 75 per cent of the costs, while Ms Violet Netto, who later took over as the lawyer on record, was held liable for 25 per cent.
The AGC had originally sought personal costs totalling $40,000 against Mr Ravi and Ms Netto for setting out to delay Nagaenthran's execution by filing unmeritorious applications, which caused it to incur unnecessary costs.
Under the law, the court has the power to order personal costs against a lawyer who causes the incurring of unnecessary costs by acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently.
On Wednesday, a five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said it would be apparent to any reasonable defence counsel that the case advanced by the duo lacked factual basis.
The court reiterated that the way the case had been conducted was a blatant and egregious abuse of the court process.
Instead of putting their best case forward at the first instance, the lawyers "drip fed" the supposed evidence and tendered documents at the last possible moment, said the court.

The court also rejected Mr Ravi's argument that he and Ms Netto cannot be made to pay personal costs as they are no longer practising lawyers.
Nagaenthran was convicted of trafficking 42.72g of heroin in 2010 and given the mandatory death penalty. His appeals against his conviction and sentence were dismissed in 2011.
Over the years, Nagaenthran filed a total of seven applications to challenge his death sentence.

Days before he was scheduled to be hanged on Nov 10 last year, Mr Ravi filed an applicaton seeking judicial review of the impending execution.
Mr Ravi also filed another application, asking for a stay of execution for Nagaenthran to be assessed by a panel of psychiatrists.
The main argument was that the death sentence could not be carried out because Nagaenthran was mentally disabled.
The case was argued by Ms Netto, assisted by Mr Ravi, before the apex court on March 1.

On March 29, the court dismissed the legal actions, saying that the case was baseless and that there was no admissible evidence of any decline in Nagaenthran's mental condition.
The court said the proceedings brought by Nagaenthran amounted to an abuse of the court's processes and had been conducted with seeming aim of delaying his execution.
On April 26, a last-minute application by Nagaenthran's mother to halt his rescheduled execution was dismissed by the court.
He was hanged at Changi Prison Complex on April 27.

 

[tanwahtiu]

Lawyers are now depending on algorithmic technology to research their cases.... getting lazy and lost many cases... but what to do... cannot depend on old tech manual research anymore lose money....

They also watch porno on mobile phones to relieve stress...

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Senior lawyer gets 3 months' suspension for breaking promise to opponents​

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

SEP 16, 2022

SINGAPORE - A senior lawyer acting for one side in a dispute over the takings of a wonton mee stall has been suspended for three months for breaking a promise to the opposing side.
Ms Naidu Priyalatha was handed a cashier's order for nearly $27,000 by the other side, and gave an undertaking not to release it to her client until a settlement agreement was reached.
However, she released the cashier's order to her clients even though the dispute was not yet settled.
In written grounds of decision issued on Friday, the Court of Three Judges said that when a lawyer chooses to deliberately breach an undertaking that was given in a professional capacity, there is cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action until proven otherwise.
"Quite simply, a solicitor should only give an undertaking with which she is able to comply. Once given, there is no turning back," said the court, which is the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession.
"If such breaches are not met with the strongest disapprobation from the profession, it would severely erode the trust one can place on a solicitor's undertaking and fundamentally change the way modern legal business and dispute resolution is conducted."
Ms Naidu, who was called to the Bar in 1980, acted for Mr Ng Kar Kui and his wife Chang Lien Siang in early 2017 in a dispute with their business partner, Ms Wong Siew Lan.

The couple held 30 per cent each of the shares in Balestier Hui Kee, which ran a wonton noodle stall, while Ms Wong, who was the cook, held a 40 per cent stake.
Cash takings from the stall were initially deposited into the company's bank account.
But Ms Wong started putting the money elsewhere after she allegedly discovered that the couple had issued cheques from the account without her knowledge.

The couple were upset by this and threatened to sue her unless she returned the funds.
On Feb 28, 2017, Ms Wong's lawyers made a settlement offer for $26,896.45 to be repaid by way of a cashier's order.
Ms Naidu asked for the cashier's order to be given to her, failing which her clients would start legal action.
Two days later, Ms Naidu agreed to a proposal by Ms Wong's lawyers for the cashier's order to be handed to her, subject to her undertaking that it not be released until parties had reached a full and final settlement.
Ms Naidu's clients started legal proceedings on April 24, 2017.

When Ms Wong's lawyers asked for the cashier's order to be returned, she replied that she held it until April 18 and that her clients had deposited it into the company's account.
The parties eventually reached a settlement a year later.
On Nov 29, 2019, Ms Wong made a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore against Ms Naidu for breaching the undertaking.
Ms Naidu pleaded guilty to a charge of grossly improper conduct before a disciplinary tribunal.
Both the Law Society and Ms Naidu took the position that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed.
The Law Society argued that the appropriate sanction was a $15,000 penalty.
However, the tribunal disagreed and referred the case to the court, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer, who was not qualified to supervise when he took on 2 trainees, suspended for 1.5 years​

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Oct 10, 2022


SINGAPORE - A lawyer, who breached a legal profession rule when he supervised two trainees even though he was not qualified to do so, was on Monday suspended for 1½ years.
Mr Clarence Lun said he failed to read the rule - which states that a supervising solicitor must have had a practising certificate for at least five years out of the seven years before the start of the supervision - before he took on the two trainees.
Mr Lun, who was then with law firm Foxwood, held a practising certificate for less than three years when he supervised Mr Lim Teng Jie and Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil, who started their training contracts on Dec 16, 2019, and Jan 2, 2020, respectively.
The suspension imposed by the Court of Three Judges was longer than the period sought by the Law Society, which argued that Mr Lun should be punished with a suspension of not more than a year.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the court will issue detailed written grounds in due course.
Mr Sarbjit Singh Chopra, who represented the Law Society, argued that Mr Lun had not taken steps to familiarise himself with the rules.
"It pains me... to say this. It just seems like he didn't care," he said.

Mr Mark Seah, who represented Mr Lun, said his client was very sorry for his mistake and that this was not a case that warranted disciplinary action.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Menon noted that harm was caused to Mr Lim, who effectively wasted six weeks, as the time he spent working under Mr Lun did not count towards his six-month training stint.
Chief Justice Menon said harm could also have been caused to the firm's clients, because work was being done by an unqualified person who was not being supervised by a qualified person.

"I think the gravity of the matter has not been appreciated at all by your client," he told Mr Seah.
According to Mr Lun, he realised that he was not qualified to be a supervising solicitor on Jan 6, 2020, when he checked the rules while he was in Perth waiting for a flight back to Singapore.
Mr Lim, who was informed on Jan 14, 2020, then had to find a training contract with another law firm and make arrangements relating to his admission to the Bar.
Ms Sunil herself had decided to terminate her training contract for personal reasons on Jan 4, 2020, and told Mr Lun over the phone on Jan 5.
During this conversation, Mr Lun told her that she would have to pay $2,000, which was a month's salary in lieu of notice.


On Jan 9, which was after he realised that he was not qualified to supervise her, Mr Lun sent Ms Sunil a text message asking for payment.
Chief Justice Menon noted that very little has been been put forward to explain why the light bulb went off in Mr Lun's head on Jan 6.
The Chief Justice also said it was "problematic" that after it occurred to Mr Lun that he was not qualified, he did not stop Mr Lim from doing legal work and pressed on getting money from Ms Sunil.
Mr Seah replied that it had not dawned upon Mr Lun that Ms Sunil's training contract had been rendered void.
Mr Lun's suspension takes effect on Nov 7. He was also ordered to pay $10,000 in legal costs to Law Society.

 

[LexLuthor]

Lawyer, who was not qualified to supervise when he took on 2 trainees, suspended for 1.5 years​

SINGAPORE - A lawyer, who breached a legal profession rule when he supervised two trainees even though he was not qualified to do so, was on Monday suspended for 1½ years.
Mr Clarence Lun said he failed to read the rule - which states that a supervising solicitor must have had a practising certificate for at least five years out of the seven years before the start of the supervision - before he took on the two trainees.

Mr Lun's suspension takes effect on Nov 7. He was also ordered to pay $10,000 in legal costs to Law Society.

Tio fixed liao.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ed-bail-gets-new-charge-of-obstructing-police

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Q
Ans: can trust HC judge from ruling political partyy?

 

[Loofydralb]

This is corruption at the highest levels. The law community protecting its own?
Who says SG has no corruption?

 

[Balls2U]

"Mr Lun, who was then with law firm Foxwood, held a practising certificate for less than three years when he supervised Mr Lim Teng Jie and Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil, who started their training contracts on Dec 16, 2019, and Jan 2, 2020, respectively."

WTF? He's a frigging new bird himself in the profession. And he behaved like some old towkay boss throwing his weight around.