Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGHC 112
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 2 of 2022
• Hearing Date: 09 November 2022,10 April 2023,14 April 2023,24 March 2023,29 March 2023
• Year: 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGHC 112
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lin Weiqi Wendy and Teo Guo Zheng, Titus (WongPartnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Disciplinary proceedings
• Published date: 26 April 2023

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

Following the release of our decision in Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2023] SGHC 65 on 21 March 2023 (the “Judgment”), the respondent, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“Mr Ravi”) wrote to the court seeking a clarification of our decision to impose a suspension of five years under s 83(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”). We had ordered that the suspension was to commence on the date of the Judgment: see [145] of the Judgment. Mr Ravi observed that he had already been out of practice for a year prior to this and he asked that we rectify this. For clarity, we reproduce the material part of Mr Ravi’s e-mail dated 24 March 2023 (the “24 March 2023 Correspondence”) as follows:

I refer [to] the above judgment where I have been suspended for 5 years.

I wish to seek clarification from the [Court of Three Judges] that effectively I have been suspended for an additional 1 year on top of the 5 years making it … a 6 year suspension.

I wish to draw the Court’s attention that I was already prohibited for [sic] applying for practising certificate which I had consented to without challenging the suspension order from the Court in 2022.

I hope the court will rectify this.

This was the first time that the matter of Mr Ravi’s supposed “prohibit[ion from] applying for [a] practising certificate” was raised in these proceedings and it would be helpful for us to set out some background. That “prohibit[ion]” arose from proceedings commenced by the Attorney-General (the “AG”) against Mr Ravi on 11 March 2022 in HC/OS 237/2022 (“OS 237”). OS 237 was brought pursuant to s 27B(1)(a) of the LPA, which provides that:

Referral to Disciplinary Tribunal and suspension of practising certificates

27B.—(1) Upon an application to a Judge by the Attorney-General or the Council, or on the hearing by a Judge of an application made under section 27A, the Judge may — (a) where the Judge is satisfied that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against a solicitor exists — (i) request the Society under section 85(3)(b) to refer the matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal unless the matter had been or is being dealt with under Part 7 or is to be dealt with under section 94A; and (ii) order that the solicitor’s current practising certificate be suspended; …

In OS 237, the AG sought an order for the suspension of Mr Ravi’s conditional practising certificate (“PC”) for the practice year beginning on 21 May 2021 and terminating on 31 March 2022 (“PY 2021/2022”). Mr Ravi’s PC for PY 2021/2022 had been issued subject to certain conditions which were designed to ensure his fitness to practice while he underwent treatment for his psychiatric condition. The grounds for the AG’s application in OS 237 were that Mr Ravi allegedly “engaged in improper conduct or misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor … on multiple occasions, and [had] breached numerous provisions of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules) 2015 …”. The alleged improper conduct related to Mr Ravi’s: (a) “conduct of court hearings and legal cases”; (b) “acting without clients’ instructions and yet misrepresenting that he had such instructions”; (c) “acting in sub judice”; (d) “failing to comply with a court order”; and (e) breaching certain conditions of his PC for PY 2021/2022. It was also stated in the supporting affidavit filed by Mr Hui Choon Kuen (“Mr Hui”) for the AG that, apart from these alleged instances of improper conduct, Mr Ravi was also facing pending disciplinary proceedings in relation to other complaints of misconduct – one of these being the present proceedings in C3J/OS 2/2022 (“OS 2”). In the AG’s view, the “gravity and frequency” of Mr Ravi’s misconduct gave rise to “grave concerns that [Mr Ravi would] persist in prejudicing the administration of justice, undermining public confidence in the integrity and honour of the legal profession, and undermining public confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of the Singapore legal system”, which warranted a suspension of his PC under s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA.

OS 237 was filed slightly less than three weeks before Mr Ravi’s PC for PY 2021/2022 was due to expire. It was explained in Mr Hui’s affidavit that this was done to “prevent [Mr Ravi] from applying for another PC until [all the pending] disciplinary proceedings [against him] have been determined”. This was a reference to a PC for the practice year 2022/2023 (“PY 2022/2023”) and beyond.

In this regard, the AG relied on s 27B(6) of the LPA, which provides that: (6) Where the suspension of the practising certificate of a solicitor under this section has terminated by reason only of the expiry of the solicitor’s current practising certificate and not by reason of the occurrence of any of the events mentioned in subsection (4), the solicitor must not apply for another practising certificate until any of the events mentioned in subsection (4) has occurred; and if a practising certificate has been issued to the solicitor, that certificate ceases to be in force.

[emphasis added]

Section 27B(4) of the LPA in turn provides that: (4) If, in a case where a Judge has made an order under subsection (1)(a)(ii) suspending a solicitor’s current practising certificate — (a) the Disciplinary Tribunal determines under section 93(1)(a) that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the solicitor exists under section 83 or determines under section 93(1)(b) that the solicitor should be reprimanded; (b) the application made against the solicitor under section 98(1) is withdrawn or dismissed; or (c) an order has been made under section 98 that the solicitor be struck off the roll, suspended from practice or censured, or that the solicitor pay a penalty,

the suspension of the practising certificate of the solicitor terminates immediately.

The AG’s position was that upon the expiration of Mr Ravi’s PC for PY 2021/2022 and by virtue of s 27B(6) read with s 27B(4) of the LPA, Mr Ravi would not be permitted to apply for another PC until the pending disciplinary matters had concluded if the court ordered a suspension of his PC under s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA.

The hearing for OS 237 was fixed for hearing before Aedit Abdullah J on 30 March 2022. However, on 23 March 2022, the AG wrote in to inform the court that:

… both parties have reached an agreement for OS 237 to be discontinued by consent on the term that the Respondent confirms and undertakes to the Supreme Court of Singapore and to the Attorney-General that he has not applied, and shall not apply, for a Practising Certificate for Practice Year 2022/2023.

Following this, a consent order was granted by Abdullah J on 30 March 2022 in materially similar terms (the “Consent Order”), recording Mr Ravi’s undertaking not to apply for a PC for PY 2022/2023 before 31 March 2023 (“Mr Ravi’s Undertaking”). OS 237 was thereby withdrawn.

Returning to the events following the release of our Judgment in OS 2, in response to Mr Ravi’s 24 March 2023 Correspondence, we directed...