Law Society of Singapore v Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGHC 182
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 6 of 2021
• Published date: 03 August 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 13 April 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai and Yong Wei Jun Jonathan (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Pereira George Barnabas and Chan Chee Yun Timothy (Pereira & Tan LLC)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Professional conduct,Grossly improper conduct
• Citation: [2022] SGHC 182

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

There is a reason why a lawyer is considered a trained professional – he or she is not only trained in the law but also applies that learning in service of his or her clients. The responsibility is a weighty one indeed and is characterised by the responsible discharge of his or her duties to both the client and to the court. This, in turn, entails the exercise of, amongst other things, the values of honour, integrity and honesty. Diligence is also an obvious trait.

Unfortunately, in the present case, the lawyer concerned demonstrated the very antithesis of the aforementioned values. As we shall see, he attested to the client signing an important document without ever meeting the client concerned. The fact that this was effected in a conveyancing context merely underscored the total absence of responsibility on his part. Indeed, the system of conveyancing he set up in Lutfi Law Corporation (the “Law Firm”) was – at best – a “non-system” where large swathes of authority were delegated to his (non-legally trained) secretary, and in which he would only meet clients if it was thought necessary. Such a “system” was, to put it mildly, an accident waiting to happen. The lawyer himself lacked insight into the shoddiness, laziness and total absence of professionalism that all this entailed. His counsel, Mr George Pereira (“Mr Pereira”), did not assist him by misguidedly emphasising this lack of insight as a mitigating factor in the affidavit of evidence-in-chief that was filed in the proceedings below.

The present proceedings relate only to the sanction which is to be imposed on the lawyer concerned. Had it not been for the fact that prior precedents and the alternative submissions of the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) suggested a more lenient sentence, as well as the fact that there was insufficient proof that there were other instances of false attestation or that he never met his clients on all other occasions (these being points which fell outside the remit of the charges as framed by the Law Society), we would have been minded to have imposed a more severe sentence (perhaps even to the extent of striking him off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors). Certainly, any lawyer who conducts himself or herself hereafter in a similar manner would risk an even more severe sanction than that imposed here. The lawyer in the present case can count himself extremely fortunate not to have been given a more severe sentence. Let us now turn to the background to the present proceedings.

Background facts

Mr Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin (the “Respondent”) was admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on 8 March 1995. He incorporated the Law Firm in 2005, by which time the bulk of his work was in conveyancing.

Sometime in 2014, a property agent introduced Mohammad Naseeruddin bin Allamdin (“Naseeruddin”), a prospective buyer of a property (the “Property”), to a conveyancing secretary of the Law Firm, Ms Fauziah binte Mohd Hussain, also known as Angela Veronica (“Angela”). Naseeruddin engaged the Respondent to act for him in the conveyancing transaction. At the material time, the Respondent was the sole director of the Law Firm.

The conveyancing documents for the purchase of the Property included a transfer instrument in the form prescribed under s 51 of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) (“LTA”) (the “Transfer Instrument”), which named Naseeruddin as the transferee, and two other persons as the transferors. As Naseeruddin took out a loan of S$2,320,000.00 (the “Loan”) from Malayan Banking Berhad (“Maybank”) to finance the transaction, the conveyancing documents also included a mortgage instrument in the form prescribed under s 51 of the LTA (the “Mortgage Instrument”), which named Naseeruddin as the mortgagor and Maybank as the mortgagee.

It was undisputed that the Respondent never met Naseeruddin throughout the entire conveyancing transaction. Angela was the only one who met with Naseeruddin in relation to the purchase of the Property. It was also Angela who prepared the Mortgage Instrument and arranged for Naseeruddin to sign it. She also prepared all of the documents relating to the conveyance of the Property, including the Transfer Instrument, and placed them on the Respondent’s desk for his signature.

When the Mortgage Instrument was executed by Naseeruddin, the Respondent did not personally witness Naseeruddin signing it as he was not present. On or about 22 April 2014, the Respondent, in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor, signed as a witness to Naseeruddin’s signature, and thereafter signed the Certificate of Correctness on the Mortgage Instrument certifying that it was correct for the purposes of the LTA. It is an agreed fact that in so doing, the Respondent falsely represented that he had witnessed Naseeruddin signing on the Mortgage Instrument.

On or about 22 April 2014, the Respondent signed the Certificate of Correctness to the Transfer Instrument in his capacity as Naseeruddin’s solicitor. In so doing, the Respondent represented that Naseeruddin had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity. However, before signing the Certificate of Correctness, the Respondent did not meet with Naseeruddin personally, and did not personally check with Naseeruddin whether he was of full age or lacked legal capacity. The Respondent did not ask Naseeruddin whether he accepted proprietorship of the Property.

After Naseeruddin defaulted on his mortgage, it was discovered that he had perpetrated fraud on Maybank by submitting forged income documents when applying for the Loan. The fraud became the subject of an investigation conducted by the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”), which uncovered the fact that the Respondent had not been present to witness Naseeruddin signing the Mortgage Instrument. It bears mentioning, however, that the Law Society accepted there was no evidence that the Respondent’s false attestation was causally connected to the fraud which Naseeruddin had perpetrated on Maybank.

On 2 December 2019, the Respondent was charged under s 59(6) of the LTA for falsely certifying to the correctness of the Mortgage Instrument by falsely stating that he had witnessed Naseeruddin’s signature on the Mortgage Instrument (the “First LTA Charge”). On 23 March 2020, the Respondent faced an additional charge under s 59(6) of the LTA for falsely certifying to the correctness of the Transfer Instrument by implying that Naseeruddin had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity (the “Second LTA Charge”). On 5 June 2020, the Respondent pleaded guilty to both charges (collectively, the “LTA Charges”) in the State Courts. He was convicted on the LTA Charges on 10 June 2020 and sentenced to a fine of S$2,800 for each charge, resulting in a global fine of S$5,600.

On 14 July 2020, the Attorney-General requested the Law Society to refer the matter to a disciplinary tribunal (“DT”) under s 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”).

In relation to the Mortgage Instrument, the Law Society preferred the following charges against the Respondent:

1st Charge

That you, Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as amounts to improper conduct within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) in that you, on or around 22 April 2014, had falsely represented that you had witnessed the signature of Mohammad Naseeruddin bin Allamdin (“Naseeruddin”) as it appeared on the mortgage instrument (no.: ID/954935K) (“Mortgage Instrument”) by signing as witness to his signature and thereafter signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the Mortgage Instrument, when you had in fact not personally witnessed Naseeruddin sign the Mortgage Instrument.

Alternative 1st Charge

That you, Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin, are guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate or solicitor of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) in that you, on or around 22 April 2014, had falsely represented that you had witnessed the signature of Mohammad Naseeruddin bin Allamdin (“Naseeruddin”) as it appeared on the mortgage instrument (no.: ID/954935K) (“Mortgage Instrument”) by signing as witness to his signature and thereafter signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the Mortgage Instrument, when you had in fact not personally witnessed Naseeruddin sign the Mortgage Instrument.

[emphasis in original]

In respect of the Transfer Instrument, the Law Society preferred the following charges against the Respondent:

2nd Charge

That you, Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as amounts to improper conduct within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) in that you, on or around 22 April 2014, had recklessly or negligently certified that Mohammad Naseeruddin bin Allamdin (“Naseeruddin”) had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity by signing the Certificate of Correctness certifying the correctness of the matters set out in the transfer instrument (no.: ID/943410Q) (“Transfer Instrument”) in your capacity as Naseeruddin’s solicitor, when you had in fact never personally confirmed that Naseeruddin had accepted proprietorship and was of full age and legal capacity, had left the preparation of the Transfer Instrument to your staff, and did not check the contents of the Transfer Instrument before signing the Certificate of Correctness.

Alternative 2nd Charge

That you, Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin, are...