Law Society of Singapore v Cheng Kim Kuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang JCA
• Judgment Date: 11 December 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGHC 350
• Docket Number: Originating Application No 2 of 2023
• Hearing Date: 09 October 2023
• Year: 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGHC 350
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cham Shan Jie, Mark (Aquinas Law Alliance LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Ying Ping (Ong Ying Ping Esq)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Disciplinary proceedings
• Published date: 11 December 2023

Tay Yong Kwang JCA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction

C3J/OA 2/2023 (“OA 2”) was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) for the respondent, Mr Cheng Kim Kuan (“Mr Cheng”), to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). The Law Society also seeks an order for the costs of and incidental to the action, including the costs of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal (“DT”) to be paid by Mr Cheng.

The misconduct in issue arose out of a solicitor’s written undertaking dated 12 May 2021 (the “Undertaking”) that Mr Cheng gave to the Council of the Law Society and the Supreme Court of Singapore in which Mr Cheng undertook to be the supervising solicitor for a fellow solicitor, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“Mr Ravi”). The Law Society alleged that Mr Cheng breached the Undertaking by failing to supervise Mr Ravi and to ensure that Mr Ravi abided by the conditions (the “Conditions”) imposed on the Practicing Certificate issued to Mr Ravi for Practice Year 2021/2022 (the “Conditional Practicing Certificate”). The Law Society further alleged that Mr Cheng’s breach of the Undertaking constituted breaches of rr 8(3) and 13(4) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”) and that amounted to: (a) grossly improper conduct in the discharge of Mr Cheng’s professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the LPA and (b) misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the LPA.

Before the DT, the Law Society preferred six principal charges and six alternative charges against Mr Cheng. The DT found cause of sufficient gravity existed in relation to two out of the six charges. These were the first and the third charges and their alternatives.

Before us, Mr Cheng indicated through his counsel that he was pleading guilty to the two charges in question and was not contesting the DT’s finding that cause of sufficient gravity existed. We agreed with the DT that cause for disciplinary action existed in respect of the first and the third charges. We imposed a six-month suspension on Mr Cheng. We now set out the reasons for our decision.

The charges

The first and the third charges against Mr Cheng, which were framed in the alternative under ss 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the LPA, read as follows:

First Charge and Alternative First Charge

You, CHENG KIM KUAN, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that from 12 May 2021 to 19 November 2021, despite paragraph 2a of [the Undertaking] given to the Supreme Court of Singapore and the Council of the Law Society of Singapore to inter alia personally supervise [Mr Ravi’s] practise as an advocate and solicitor in K K Cheng Law LLC, in dereliction of your duty and breach of your undertaking, failed to personally supervise [Mr Ravi’s] practise as an advocate and solicitor in K K Cheng Law LLC, or at all, by allowing [Mr Ravi] to have sole conduct of the legal matters and not vetting any of [Mr Ravi’s] legal submissions and/or affidavits and/or correspondence and in particular, did not personally supervise the conduct of [HC/OS 1025/2021] and [HC/SUM 4742/2021], and your aforesaid conduct amounts to: (a) grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966; or alternatively (b) misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966.

Third Charge and Alternative Third Charge

You, CHENG KIM KUAN, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that despite paragraph 2b in [the Undertaking] given to the Supreme Court of Singapore and the Council of the Law Society of Singapore to inter alia provide “a monthly report within the first working day of every calendar month (ie excluding weekends and public holidays) attesting to whether [Mr Ravi] has complied with all applicable professional conduct rules and that no complaint in relation to [Mr Ravi’s] professional conduct has been received”, did breach his undertaking by failing to submit the November 2021 Supervising Solicitor’s Report by its due date on 1 December 2021 or at all and your aforesaid conduct amounts to: (a) grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966; or alternatively (b) misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966.

As the remaining four charges and their alternatives were no longer in issue, it is not necessary to set out these charges in full. In summary, these four charges concerned other alleged breaches by Mr Cheng of the Undertaking. For instance, his alleged failure to seek the leave of the Court to amend the Conditions imposed on Mr Ravi to practise only under Mr Cheng’s personal supervision and out of the office of Mr Cheng’s legal practice, K K Cheng Law LLC (“KKCL”). Another alleged breach concerned Mr Cheng’s failure to vet all correspondence, affidavits and legal submissions emanating from Mr Ravi and to scrutinise Mr Ravi’s caseload to ensure that he had the capacity to take on legal matters.

The facts

The facts in support of the charges were undisputed. We summarise them below.

Background

Mr Cheng was admitted as an advocate and solicitor on 26 July 1997. At all material times, Mr Cheng was the sole director of KKCL, located at 101 Upper Cross Street #05-21 People’s Park Centre Singapore 058537.

Mr Cheng and Mr Ravi became acquainted with each other sometime in 2019. At that time, Mr Mr Ravi’s law firm was also located in People’s Park Centre. Mr Cheng would encounter Mr Ravi from time to time and they would engage in occasional small talk. On one such occasion, Mr Ravi informed Mr Cheng that he was to be reinstated as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore but was unable to do so as no lawyer was willing to stand as his supervising solicitor or monitoring solicitor. Upon hearing this, Mr Cheng offered to be Mr Ravi’s monitoring solicitor. This entailed Mr Cheng’s supervision over Mr Ravi’s consumption of his medications.

Sometime in December 2020, Mr Ravi requested Mr Cheng to be his supervising solicitor. Mr Cheng considered this matter over several months before agreeing to do so around April 2021.

Facts relating to the charges The Undertaking and the Conditions

On 12 May 2021, Mr Cheng gave the Undertaking to the Supreme Court of Singapore and the Council of the Law Society to be Mr Ravi’s supervising solicitor. The terms of the Undertaking were: 1 I, Mr Cheng Kim Kuan, NRIC Number [XXX], of [XXX], an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, AAS number 362 of 1996, director of [KKCL], 101 Upper Cross Street, #05-21 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357, hereby confirms that: a. I am aware that [Mr Ravi], NRIC Number [XXX] of [XXX], an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, AAS Number 353 of 1996, wishes to be issued with a Practising Certificate for the practice year 2021/2022 (“the Practising Certificate”). b. I have been informed by [Mr Ravi] of the conditions to be imposed on the Practising Certificate (“the conditions”), and I have also read and have understood the conditions, and confirm that the conditions are those annexed to this Letter of Confirmation and Undertaking. c. I have been informed by [Mr Ravi] that he shall provide me with irrevocable instructions to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed on the Practising Certificate. d. I am aware that under the conditions, I will be the Supervising Solicitor for [Mr Ravi] and I so agree to be the Supervising Solicitor for [Mr Ravi]. e. I am aware that [Mr Ravi] shall only practise as an advocate and solicitor in [KKCL] under my personal supervision. f. I am aware that prior leave of the Court should be sought for any change to the arrangement whereby [Mr Ravi] practices as an advocate and solicitor in [KKCL] under my personal supervision as his Supervising Solicitor. g. I am aware of, understand, consent to and unequivocally agree to abide by the responsibilities, duties and obligations that are imposed on me in the conditions. 2 I now give this professional undertaking pursuant to rules 8(3) and 13(4) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (Cap 161, Section 71), to the Supreme Court of Singapore and to the Council of the Law Society of Singapore, that I shall: a. Personally supervise [Mr Ravi]’s practise as an advocate and solicitor in [KKCL]. b. Provide to the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) and Attorney -General Chambers (“AGC”) a monthly report within the first working day of every calendar month (ie. excluding weekends and public holidays) attesting to whether [Mr Ravi] has complied with all applicable professional conduct rules and that no complaint in relation to [Mr Ravi]’s professional conduct has been received. c. Immediately notify the Law Society and the AGC if I become aware of any circumstances that may impair the fitness of [Mr Ravi] to practise as an advocate and solicitor, or which may impair the professional judgment of [Mr Ravi], including but not limited to situations where [Mr Ravi]: i. fails or refuses to consume the medication prescribed by Dr Derrick Yeo in the presence of the Monitoring Solicitor; ii. fails to comply with all applicable professional conduct rules or if any complaint in relation to [Mr Ravi’s] professional conduct is received; or iii. fails to comply with any condition of this Practising Certificate. d. Take all necessary...