Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh Jonathan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 102
• Plaintiff Counsel: Siraj Omar SC and Audie Wong Cheng Siew (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 13 of 2019
• Date: 18 May 2020
• Hearing Date: 18 May 2020
• Subject Matter: Failure to supervise,Duties,Professional conduct,Fee-sharing agreement,Breach,Supervision of paralegal,Sanction,Show cause action,Legal Profession
• Published date: 21 May 2020
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 102
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Year: 2020

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, we find the respondent’s misconduct to be sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of a sanction under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). In line with the submissions of the Law Society, we impose a three-month suspension starting from the date of this judgment. We note that the respondent conceded this position before us this morning. We think that this concession was well-founded. We now set out the oral grounds for our decision.

Facts

The respondent was admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 21 March 1998. In January 2015, Mr Colin Craig Lowell Phan Siang Loong (“Colin Phan”) began working as the respondent’s paralegal while the respondent was a consultant at Whitefield Law Corporation. Mr Colin Phan told the respondent a month before that he had been unable to renew his practising certificate to practise as an advocate and solicitor. It was not disputed that Colin Phan was an unauthorised person under s 32(2) of the Act. Between January and February 2015, Colin Phan sent five emails to three individuals where he represented himself to be an advocate and solicitor. The respondent was copied in the emails. The respondent was charged under s 83(2)(b) and in the alternative, s 83(2)(h) of the Act for his failure to exercise adequate supervision of Colin Phan.

The respondent and Colin Phan also had an agreement to share approximately 50% of the respondent’s fees for the legal work that Colin Phan had performed. The precise percentage of the fees shared was decided on a case-by-case basis. The respondent had paid Colin Phan a few hundred dollars pursuant to this agreement. The respondent was charged under s 83(2)(b) and in the alternative, s 83(2)(h) of the Act for sharing his legal fees with Colin Phan.

The respondent’s misconduct was sufficiently serious to impose a sanction

The respondent did not contest the underlying facts of the charges against him, in particular, the Law Society’s Statement of Case dated 26 March 2019 (“the Statement of Case”). We are satisfied that the respondent’s misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of a sanction under s 83(1) of the Act (see Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju [2017] 4 SLR 1369 at [30]). Due cause has been made out for the following reasons.

First, the respondent has a duty to exercise proper and constant supervision over Colin Phan, who was employed as his paralegal (see r 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (2010 Rev Ed) (“PCR”)). It is a criminal offence for Colin Phan, being an unauthorised person, to represent himself to be an advocate and solicitor (see s 33 of the Act). Proper supervision is vital for the protection of the public. It ensures that clients receive legal advice only from those duly qualified and authorised to carry on legal work. This preserves public confidence in the legal profession which is an indispensable element in the fabric of the justice system (see Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chwee Wan Allan [2007] 4 SLR(R) 699 (“Allan Tan”) at [38]; Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin and another [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401 at [25]). The respondent’s failure to supervise Colin Phan undermined public confidence in the legal profession.

Second, the respondent has a duty not to share his fees with an unauthorised person for any legal work performed (see r 39 of the PCR). It is an offence for an unauthorised person to hold himself out as an advocate and solicitor. Such a person is not entitled to, and cannot recover any fees done in relation to any legal work he performs (see...