Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican v The Law Society of Singapore and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 05 September 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGHC 246
• Docket Number: Originating Application No 4 of 2023
• Hearing Date: 05 September 2023
• Year: 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGHC 246
• Plaintiff Counsel: Siraj Omar SC, Joelle Tan and Tan Shih Rong Robbie (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Vergis S Abraham SC and Loo Yinglin Bestlyn (Providence Law Asia LLC),Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal and Tan Zhongshan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Reinstatement
• Published date: 05 September 2023

Tay Yong Kwang JCA (delivering the judgment of the court):

C3J/OA 4/2023 (the “Reinstatement Application”) was an application by Mr Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican (“Mr Sadique”) under s 102(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) to be reinstated to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore (the “Roll”). Mr Sadique was struck off the Roll on 20 January 2011 in Law Society of Singapore v Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin and another matter [2011] 2 SLR 620, following the misappropriation of clients’ funds of more than $11m by his then partner, Mr Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin (“Mr Zulkifli”).

Two issues arose for consideration in the Reinstatement Application. First, whether Mr Sadique should be reinstated to the Roll. Second, whether his reinstatement should be “subject to any conditions that the court thinks fit” under s 102(1)(b) of the LPA.

After hearing the parties on 5 September 2023, we allowed the Reinstatement Application subject to the conditions imposed at [37] below. These are our detailed grounds.

Background to the Reinstatement Application Events leading up to Mr Sadique being struck off the Roll

Mr Sadique was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2000. In 2004, Mr Sadique and Mr Zulkifli set up the law practice called M/s Sadique Marican & Z M Amin (the “Firm”). Mr Zulkifli was the Firm’s managing partner and managed the Firm’s client and office accounts while Mr Sadique was responsible for matters concerning staff salaries and the monthly review of the balances in the client account.

On 19 November 2007, Mr Sadique discovered that both the Firm’s client and office accounts were overdrawn. One day later, Mr Zulkifli absconded.

On 22 November 2007, Mr Sadique and another partner of the Firm informed the Compliance and Conduct Department of the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) that Mr Zulkifli was untraceable and that they suspected that he had misappropriated moneys from both the client and the office accounts. A police report was also made on the same day.

On 23 November 2007, the Compliance and Conduct Department of the Law Society informed Mr Sadique that the Council of the Law Society (the “Council”) would inspect the Firm’s accounts for the period 1 January 2007 to 22 November 2007. The subsequent inspection by the Law Society revealed that the Firm had not prepared any bank reconciliation statements after June 2007. Further, contrary to the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R8, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SAR”), the Firm had issued cash cheques totalling $5,660,357.02 and the propriety of issuing those cheques could not be verified due to insufficient documentation supporting the payments.

On 3 June 2008, the Council referred the matter to an Inquiry Committee which recommended a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”). Before the DT, the Law Society preferred three charges against Mr Sadique for his breaches of the SAR: The “First Charge” was that for the period August to October 2007, Mr Sadique failed to conduct any reconciliation of the balances in the clients’ cash books and the monthly bank statements of the Firm’s client account and also to keep a statement showing the reconciliation in a cash book or other appropriate accounting documents. The “Second Charge” was that for the period 3 January 2007 to 20 November 2007, Mr Sadique failed to record or cause to be recorded all transactions concerning the Firm’s client account in ledgers required to be maintained. The “Third Charge” was that for the period 3 January 2007 to 20 November 2007, Mr Sadique breached his duty as a co-signatory of the Firm’s client account by failing to adequately supervise transactions involving this account and by failing to safeguard clients’ moneys in the account such that unauthorised transactions were made from it.

On 5 August 2009, the DT heard the charges against Mr Sadique and found that the First Charge was proved only in relation to the month of October 2007 but not August and September 2007. The DT found that Mr Sadique was guilty in respect of the Second Charge and the Third Charge. The DT was of the view that there was sufficient cause for disciplinary action to be taken against Mr Sadique. An application was then taken out in Originating Summons No 219 of 2010 (“OS 219”) for Mr Sadique to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under s 83 of the LPA.

The Court of Three Judges (the “Court”) heard OS 219 and issued its decision on 20 January 2011. In respect of the First Charge, the Court affirmed the DT’s finding that the reconciliation statements for October 2007 had not been prepared. The Court further held that the August and September 2007 reconciliation statements were also not prepared.

In respect of the Second Charge, the Court agreed with the DT’s findings. The Court noted that Mr Sadique was unable to produce the Firm’s actual ledger as he claimed that it was missing.

In respect of the Third Charge, the Court agreed with the DT’s findings. The Court observed that Mr Sadique’s failure to supervise the Firm’s accounts and to put in place an adequate system of periodic checks allowed Mr Zulkifli to commit a massive fraud over a relatively short period of time.

The Court was of the view that the appropriate penalty was for Mr Sadique to be struck off the Roll for the following reasons: First, while Mr Sadique did not misappropriate the clients’ moneys and there was no dishonesty on his part, he allowed Mr Zulkifli to manage the Firm’s accounts alone and without a framework for periodic checks. This resulted in no checks being conducted during the period when the misappropriations took place. This was in spite of the fact that Mr Sadique would have known that the Firm had a sizeable conveyancing practice and that the client account would contain substantial funds. Second, an advocate and solicitor could be struck off the Roll for serious transgressions other than dishonesty in exceptional circumstances. The present facts amounted to such an exceptional case due to the huge financial loss caused to the Firm’s clients. Third, Mr Sadique’s dereliction of duty was a serious breach of professional responsibility as it facilitated losses to more than 80 clients of a sum of more than $11m. While the Firm was able to repay about $1m to its clients, there was still an amount of $10m that the Firm was unable to repay.

Salient events after Mr Sadique was struck off the Roll Mr Sadique’s bankruptcy

Following Mr Zulkifli’s abscondment, Mr Sadique and the Firm arranged to pay out more than $1m to the Firm’s clients. However, as Mr Sadique was unable to pay the majority of the debts owed to the Firm’s clients and creditors, bankruptcy proceedings were commenced against him in 2009. He was declared a bankrupt on 4 February 2010.

Thereafter, Mr Sadique made monthly payments averaging $1,000 for a period of 12 years until the Official Assignee applied for him to be discharged from bankruptcy on the grounds of his good conduct, regular payments and a serious medical condition that he was suffering from. None of Mr Sadique’s creditors objected to this application and Mr Sadique was discharged from bankruptcy on 7 February 2022.

Mr Sadique’s health issues

As alluded to at [15] above, Mr Sadique was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus in 2013 which eventually led to the removal of his stomach. The cancer recurred in 2015 and he sought further treatment in July that year that involved aggressive chemotherapy. Mr Sadique has since made a full recovery.

Mr Sadique’s continued engagement with the law

Mr Sadique continued to be actively involved and engaged in legal work overseas after he was struck off the Roll. From January 2011, he took up a variety of in-house legal roles in Dubai and won awards for his work as general counsel. Between June 2022 and February 2023, Mr Sadique joined a UAE private practice in Dubai as the Head of Arbitration.

Aside from his core legal work in Dubai, Mr Sadique was involved in law-related speaking engagements and he has published law-related articles. Mr Sadique also attended legal courses even after he was struck off the Roll. He obtained a Master of Science Degree with Distinction in Construction Law and Dispute Resolution from the British University in Dubai in association with King’s College London in 2014.

The...