Law Society of Singapore v Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ,Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA,Judith Prakash JCA
• Judgment Date: 07 April 2022
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 7 of 2021

Law Society of Singapore

and

Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan

[2022] SGHC 79

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA and Judith Prakash JCA

Originating Summons No 7 of 2021

Court of Three Judges

Legal Profession — Show cause action — Grossly improper conduct — Errant solicitor falsely attesting to having witnessed signing of power of attorney — Undisputed that donor of power of attorney did want to sign instrument and did sign it albeit doing so before errant solicitor's secretary and not solicitor himself — Undisputed that errant solicitor's act of dishonesty was one of grave misjudgment rather than indicative of character defect and so presumptive penalty of striking off could be displaced — What was appropriate period of suspension to be imposed on errant solicitor — Whether imposition of all or part of period of suspension could be substituted with imposition of fine — Section 83(1) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)

Held, suspending the respondent for a period of nine months:

(1) There was no question that the Complainant here did want to sign the POA he signed, and did in fact sign it, albeit before the respondent's secretary and not before the respondent himself. Therefore, as both parties accepted, the facts in this case were less serious than that of the first respondent solicitor in Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun[2017] 4 SLR 707 (“Sum Chong Mun”), who had been procured by the second respondent solicitor to certify and witness the execution of a lasting power of attorney (“LPOA”) on which the donor's signature had already been affixed, and who was suspended from practice for one year. In part, this case was also less serious because the instrument in Sum Chong Mun was a LPOA that implicated serious public interest concerns: at [7] and [8].

(2) A fine and a period of suspension were distinct sanctions and there was no meaningful way in which any part of a period of suspension could be substituted with the imposition of a fine. A fine could be imposed on its own where it was sufficient or in addition to some other sanction including a period of suspension where this was warranted by other considerations, such as the desire to disgorge an illicit gain. The court therefore did not accept that it was permissible to view the imposition of a fine as a substitute for the imposition of all or part of a period of suspension and so rejected the respondent's submission: at [9].

(3) With regard had to the sentencing considerations and the mitigating circumstances, as well as the sentence imposed on the first respondent solicitor in Sum Chong Mun, the appropriate sentence in this case was the imposition of a suspension for a period of nine months: at [10].

Case(s) referred to

Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul [2011] 4 SLR 1184 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan [2018] 4 SLR 859 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang [2018] 5 SLR 1068 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun [2017] 4 SLR 707 (folld)

Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng John [2012] 3 SLR 150 (refd)

Facts

The applicant preferred a single charge of grossly improper conduct under s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”) against the respondent, a solicitor of about 21 years' standing, for falsely attesting that he had witnessed the signing of...