Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 29 April 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 120
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sean La'Brooy and Tan Wei Ser Venetia (Colin Ng & Partners LLP)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 265 of 2015
• Date: 29 April 2015
• Hearing Date: 09 April 2015
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession -Disciplinary Proceedings,Legal Profession -Professional Conduct
• Year: 2015
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 120
• Defendant Counsel: Eugene Thuraisingam (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 May 2015

Sundaresh Menon CJ: Introduction

This is an application for leave for a Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed to conduct an investigation into a complaint of misconduct on the part of a non-practising solicitor.

The applicant is the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”), and the respondent is Ravi s/o Madasamy, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of 17 years’ standing (“the Respondent”). I heard the Law Society’s application on 9 April 2015. Notwithstanding that it was meant to be an ex parte hearing, I allowed the Respondent and his counsel, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam (“Mr Thuraisingam”), to be present. Mr Thuraisingam made it clear that he was not present with a view to making any submissions, save to the extent there were any questions I might direct to him. As it transpired, Mr Thuraisingam did address me on some aspects of the case upon my invitation, as I will outline below. At the end of the hearing, I also raised some concerns with the Law Society and adjourned the matter for one week. On 16 April 2015, the Law Society addressed these concerns by filing a further affidavit. Having considered all that was put before me, I have decided to grant the leave sought by the Law Society for the reasons that follow.

The facts

The present application arose out of the Respondent’s conduct which occurred during a period when he had been suspended from practice. The Council of the Law Society (“the Council”), based on circumstances that are not directly relevant to the present application, was satisfied that the Respondent’s fitness to practice was impaired by reason of his mental condition, and on 10 February 2015, directed him to stop practising until he had submitted to a medical examination (“the Council’s Direction”). The Council’s Direction was issued pursuant to s 25C(7) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”).

A copy of the Council’s Direction was served on the Respondent on the same day at or around 12.15 pm. A few hours later, at or around 5.45 pm, the Respondent appeared at the Law Society’s premises with three companions and was alleged to have: caused, encouraged or permitted an unauthorised video clip of the staff and premises of the Law Society to be taken, and thereafter to be published online for public viewing; directed vulgarities at the staff and/or failed to prevent the same from being done by his companions; and restrained or attempted to restrain the staff from leaving the premises by obstructing the exit and/or permitted the same being done by his companions.

The Council wrote to the Respondent on 13 February 2015 in relation to the incident on 10 February 2015 and demanded that he apologise for his conduct, undertake not to repeat the same and further, that he remove the video clip and not further disseminate it. The Respondent complied with these demands by way of a letter to the Law Society dated 16 March 2015, in which he apologised for his conduct on 10 February 2015 and undertook both not to repeat such conduct and to remove the video clip.

However, in the period between the incident at the premises of the Law Society on 10 February 2015 and the Respondent’s apology and undertaking that was proffered on 16 March 2015, other events, which are material to the present application, had taken place.

On 11 February 2015, one day after the incident at the premises of the Law Society, the Respondent sent an email to the Straits Times news desk and a senior reporter, Mr K C Vijayan, of the Singapore Press Holdings. The Respondent’s email primarily concerned his suspension by the Law Society but also contained an allegation that Mr Colin Phan (“Mr Phan”), also an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, had been practising without a practising certificate. In the same email, the Respondent included various letters from the State Courts registry and the Supreme Court registry and two letters from Drew & Napier LLC (“D&N”), one of which was marked “without prejudice”. He also attached a photograph which showed, in the words of the Respondent, “the police being called to arrest [Mr Phan]”.

On 17 February 2015, the Council applied to the High Court by way of Originating Summons No 161 of 2015 (“OS 161/2015”) for an order that the Respondent submit to a medical examination. This was done to comply with the requirement under s 25C(8), read with s 25C(1), of the LPA, that the Council shall apply to a Judge for such an order within seven days of having issued a direction to suspend practice pursuant to s 25C(7) of the LPA.

The next day (ie, 18 February 2015), the Respondent allegedly made certain remarks regarding Mr Thio Shen Yi SC (“Mr Thio”), the President of the Law Society, on what appeared to be the Respondent’s Facebook page. The relevant parts read:

Mr Ravi is bemused if not surprised that the President of the Law Society, Thio Shen Yi, head of the Council of the Law Society) had arrogated himself the knowledge of psychiatric medicine in suspending Mr Ravi from practice. Mr Ravi earnestly feels Mr Thio Shen Yi needs to go for psychiatric treatment and also it will be helpful if he could ask his sister, the infamous Ms Thio Li-Ann (supposedly leading authority on Constitutional Law and who is doggedly opposed to the decriminalization of homosexuality and internationally disgraced for her bigotry on human rights versus Charismatic Christianity). Mr M Ravi seriously hopes Mr Thio Shen Yi does not end up being disgraced by the members of the Bar by way of an EOGM, a similar situation which his mother Prof Thio Su Mein faced during the AWARE saga and it would seem that the Thio family has not carefully examined its own antecedents.

Thio Shen Yi needs a serious examination of his own head before he goes head to head on this matter with Mr Ravi. Mr Ravi will commence his slew of legal action against the Council members in the coming days and will be suing them jointly and severally.

The Council’s application by way of OS 161/2015 was heard by Quentin Loh J on 24 and 26 February 2015. On 26 February 2015, Loh J ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice until further order.

On the same day (ie, 26 February 2015), the Respondent allegedly made further statements on Facebook. In particular, through a Facebook post, he alleged misconduct on the part of Mr Pradeep Pillai (“Mr Pillai”) from Shook Lin & Bok LLP who was acting on behalf of the Law Society in OS 161/2015. The relevant parts of the post read:

At the hearing this afternoon on the Law Society’s application to suspend Mr Ravi from practice, which was made after he had announced his intention to contest the next general elections against the prime minister at Ang Mo Kio GRC, the proceedings turned into a mess towards the end of the morning hearing.

The law society’s lawyer Mr Pradeep of M/s Shook Lin & Bok shouted at Mr Ravi in front of the Judge that Ravi should not attend court anymore and he shouted at Mr Ravi directly instead of addressing the court. The judge, His Honourable Justice Quentin Loh visibly looked disconcerted at the Law Society counsel’s misbehaviour.

Mr Ravi appealed to the court to control the emotions of Mr Pradeep which ran high through his veins. At the close of the hearing as the Judge returned to his chambers, Mr Pradeep assaulted Mr Ravi. This was captured in the court’s camera footage. Mr Ravi immediately responded to Mr Pradeep who was trying to agitate Mr Ravi before and throughout the hearing but to no avail, putting Mr Pradeep on immediate notice that he will be commencing a Magistrate Complaint against Mr Pradeep and also commencing legal action against Mr Pradeep, lawyer for the Law Society, for assaulting Mr Ravi in committing the tort of battery and for his shouting at Mr Ravi directly.

On 19 March 2015, the Respondent filed an application for an order to lift the suspension (by way of Summons No 1269 of 2015). Loh J heard the parties on 1 April 2015. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent, Mr Thuraisingam, sought leave to withdraw the application as the issue had become moot by the expiry of the Respondent’s practising certificate on 31 March 2015. Loh J allowed the application to be withdrawn.

The Law Society’s submissions

The Law Society submits that the Respondent had, by his conduct, brought the legal profession as a whole into disrepute and lowered its esteem in the eyes of the general public. In particular, the Law Society identifies four acts or aspects of misconduct, namely: the Respondent attended the Law Society’s premises on 10 February 2015, at or around 5.45 pm, with three companions and acted in a manner which constituted harassment or caused alarm or distress to the Law Society’s staff (“the 1st allegation”); the Respondent sent an email to the press on 11 February 2015 in which he alleged that Mr Phan was acting without a practising certificate, included various confidential documents relating to client matters, as well as one “without prejudice” communication from D&N, and a photograph which he claimed showed the police being called to arrest Mr Phan (“the 2nd allegation”); the Respondent made derogatory and defamatory remarks against Mr Thio on what appeared to be his Facebook page on 18 February 2015 (“the 3rd allegation”); and the Respondent falsely alleged that Mr Pillai had assaulted him on what appeared to be his Facebook page on 26 February 2015 (“the 4th allegation”).

The Law Society submits that leave should be granted for a Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed to hear and investigate these matters.

Leave under s 82A(6) of the LPA

In cases of misconduct involving Legal Service Officers and non-practising solicitors, leave must be granted by the Chief Justice before an investigation may be conducted into the complaint of misconduct. This is clear from s 82A(4) of the LPA, which provides that:

No application for a Legal Service...