Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date09 November 2011
Date09 November 2011
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 442 of 2011
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Law Society of Singapore
Plaintiff
and
Ng Bock Hoh Dixon
Defendant

[2011] SGHC 242

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

VKRajah JA

Originating Summons No 442 of 2011

High Court

Legal Profession—Professional conduct—Breach—Advocate and solicitor rendering false bill for professional charges—Advocate and solicitor submitting false bill to accountant and Council of the Law Society—Whether advocate and solicitor's conduct amounted to grossly improper misconduct or misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor—Whether conduct warranting order that advocate and solicitor be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court

A complaint was lodged against the respondent (‘the Respondent’), an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court at the material time, for his failure to refund the sum of US$100,000 which the Complainant had placed with the Respondent's law firm (‘the Consultancy Fee Deposit’). According to the Complainant, the Consultancy Fee Deposit was to be held by the Respondent's law firm as stakeholders in connection with a potential project in Cambodia.

An inquiry committee was constituted to inquire into the complaint. The Respondent wrote a letter to the inquiry committee. In that letter, the Respondent explained that he did not hold the Consultancy Fee Deposit as a stakeholder. Instead, the Consultancy Fee Deposit was a ‘Party Political Donation’ by the Complainant ‘for the ruling party in Cambodia’. The Respondent stated that he paid the Consultancy Fee Deposit to a representative of the Cambodian government. The Respondent further explained that he had rendered a bill to the Complainant for the amount of US$100,000 for ‘professional charges in connection with the [Sihanoukville Port] matter including other incidental work necessary to carry out the business entrusted to [his law firm]’ and for ‘ [his law firm's] [a]greed costs in introducing and working towards turn key project for the operations and management of Sihanoukville Port, Cambodia’ (‘the Bill’). The Respondent asserted that the Bill was a contemporaneous document which supported his version of events because it was produced to the Council of the Law Society when it exercised its powers under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) to conduct an investigative audit into the accounts of the Respondent's law firm.

The Law Society of Singapore (‘the Law Society’) charged the Respondent with the following:

  1. (a) grossly improper conduct or, alternatively, misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor by breaching r 12 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) in failing to use all reasonably available legal means consistent with his retainer to advance the interest of the Complainant in carrying out his obligation as a stakeholder (‘the Stakeholding Charge’);

  2. (b) grossly improper conduct in wilfully and knowingly rendering a bill with a statement that he knew to be false (‘the False Bill Charge’);

  3. (c) grossly improper conduct in breaching r 3 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) (‘the Solicitors' Accounts Rules’) in failing to pay the US$100,000, which was client's money, into a client account (‘the Client Account Charge’);

  4. (d) grossly improper conduct or, alternatively, misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor by failing to honestly co-operate with and wilfully failing to provide accurate information and explanations to his accountants, for the purpose of their preparation of the Accountant's Report provided for under s 73 of the Act, by providing inaccurate information to them about the Bill and/or the nature of the payment of US$100,000 (‘the Accountant's Report Charge’); and

  5. (e) grossly improper conduct or, alternatively, misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor by failing to honestly co-operate with and wilfully failing to provide accurate information and explanations to the Council of the Law Society, for its purpose of inspecting his law firm's books of account and other relevant accounting documents, by providing inaccurate information to it about the Bill and/or the nature of the payment of US$100,000 (‘the Account Inspection Charge’).

A disciplinary tribunal (‘the DT’) found that the Stakeholding Charge and the Client Account Charge were not proven beyond reasonable doubt because there was some basis to think that the letter which purported to set out a stakeholding arrangement, was a sham document that did not represent the true intentions of the parties. However, the DT found that the False Bill Charge, the Accountant's Report Charge and the Account Inspection Charge were made out.

The Law Society then applied for an order that the Respondent be made to suffer such punishment as is provided in s 83 (1) of the Act.

A court of three Judges had previously suspended the Respondent from practice for a period of two years for preparing two draft court judgments purportedly issued by the Subordinate Courts of Singapore which he knew were false (see Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2010] 2 SLR 1000 (‘the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings’)).

Held, ordering that the Respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court:

(1) The DT had correctly found that the False Bill Charge was made out. The Bill was a sham on the Respondent's own evidence. The Respondent's evidence was that the Consultancy Fee Deposit was in reality a party political donation and that he hadpaid out the Consultancy Fee Deposit to a representative of the Cambodian government. On this version of events, the Bill was patently false. The Bill represented that the Consultancy Fee Deposit was received by the Respondent as his professional charges. This stood in stark contrast to his evidence that he was, in essence, channelling the Consultancy Fee Deposit through his law firm. In fact, the Respondent conceded in cross-examination that the Bill was a sham: at [26].

(2) The Accountant's Report Charge and the Account Inspection Charge were also made out. There was sufficient evidence before the DT to infer that the Respondent's failure to provide accurate information to the Council of the Law Society and his accountant was wilful and amounted to a lack of honest co-operation. The Respondent provided the Council of the Law Society and his accountant with the Bill when he was made to produce his accounting records. The Respondent was not under any misapprehension as to the nature of the Bill. He knew that the Bill was a sham. In the absence of a reasonable explanation from the Respondent as to why he submitted a sham document to his accountant and the Council of the Law Society without disclosing its true nature, the only possible inference that could be drawn from his conduct was that he intended for the Council of the Law Society and his accountant to accept the Bill as a genuine document. An advocate and solicitor who intentionally presented sham documents to his accountant and the Council of the Law Society could not be said to have honestly co-operated with them: at [28].

(3) The Respondent's conduct clearly fell below the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness required of an advocate and solicitor and his conduct warranted an order that he be struck off the roll:

  1. (a) On his own evidence, the Respondent had deliberately created a false document in the course of discharging his professional duties. Although the Bill was not a court document, it was nevertheless an important accounting record relating to his law firm's client's account. It was beyond dispute that bills produced by advocates and solicitors were important documents and it was vital to the proper maintenance of accounting records that they meant what they said. Hence, it could not be argued that the Respondent's conduct in the present proceedings was less severe than his conduct in the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings: at [33].

  2. (b) In fact, the Respondent's conduct was, on one view at least,more egregious than his conduct in the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings. One aspect which particularly influenced the court in the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings was the fact that the false court document was only meant to be shown to the complainant's wife in order to placate her. In other words, the false document was not put into general circulation. In contrast, the Bill in the present case formed a part of the Respondent's accounting documents and was presented to third parties (ie, the Council of the Law Society and the Respondent's accountant) without further clarification: at [34].

  3. (c) The fact that the Respondent had previously been suspended for a period of two years for falsifying a judgment was also taken into account. The fact that an advocate and solicitor had previously committed a similar disciplinary offence was a significant aggravating factor that the court would consider in determining the appropriate sanction. The court accepted, however, that the events for which the Respondent was charged in these proceedings occurred before he was subjected to the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings. This was not to say that the first offence was entirely irrelevant to sentencing unless the offender had been convicted of it before he committed the first offence. All thatcould be said was that the Respondent was not acting in defiance of the disciplinary process. However, the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings were certainly relevant because they demonstrated a disturbing propensity on the part of the Respondent to falsify documents. The Respondent's conduct did not also appear to be the product of a discrete and momentary lapse of judgment because the Bill was rendered not long after he had prepared the false court judgments that were the subject of the False Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings. An...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 Diciembre 2019
    ...Law Society of Singapore v Nathan Edmund [1998] 2 SLR(R) 905; [1998] 3 SLR 414 (folld) Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2012] 1 SLR 348 (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng John [2012] 3 SLR 150 (distd) Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matter
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 27 Junio 2017
    ...of the person concerned in order to determine what order should be made”. In particular, in Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2012] 1 SLR 348 (“Ng Bock Hoh Dixon”) at [35], the court held that “[t]he fact that an advocate and solicitor had previously committed a similar discipli......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 30 Enero 2018
    ...to have a single hearing of all matters then pending against the Respondent: see Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2012] 1 SLR 348 at [38]. The first set of proceedings against the Respondent was disposed of on 26 October 2016: he was found culpable and sentenced to a 15-month s......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 3 Agosto 2022
    ...aggravating factor that the court will consider in determining the appropriate sanction (Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2012] 1 SLR 348 at [35]). The respondent was previously sanctioned for having failed to deposit client monies into the appropriate account. This was similar......
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 Diciembre 2012
    ...there is a small residual category in which a dishonest lawyer may escape disbarment. 21.4 Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon[2012] 1 SLR 348 (‘Ng Bock Hoh Dixon’) was an application to show cause for the respondent's misconduct in connection with a dubious transaction. At stake a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT