Public Prosecutor v Mahadevan Lukshumayeh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Keen Onn
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 129
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 29 June 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohamed Nasser Ismail and Hwong Meng Jet (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: N Sreenivasan with Yusfianto (Straits Law Practice LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 33(1),Sentence
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 129

31 May 2005

District Judge Wong Keen Onn

The Charges

1. This is the second of the four cases before the Courts for offences involving an unauthorised person who had acted as an advocate or a solicitor, contrary to section 33 of the Legal Profession Act (“LPA” or “Act”), Chapter 161. The accused, one Mahadevan Lukshumayeh, had faced a total of 49 charges, being 33 counts under section 33(1)(a) LPA and 16 counts under section 33(1)(b) LPA.

2. On 25 April 2005, the accused pleaded guilty to six charges under section 33 of the Legal Profession Act for acting as an advocate and solicitor without a valid practicing certificate, namely, four counts under section 33(1)(a) LPA and two counts under section 33(1)(b) LPA. According to the six proceeded charges, the accused committed these offences in that he had:

(1) Between 2 April and 23 April 2002, being an unauthorized person, did act as an advocate or solicitor for one Jenny Wee May Ling, when he prepared court documents relating to a divorce proceeding in the courts of Singapore, an offence under Section 33(1)a of the Legal Profession Act. (PS 1477/04 - 4^th charge, Exhibit P1)

(2) Between 6 August 2002 and 22 August 2003, in Singapore, being an unauthorized person, did act as an advocate or solicitor for one Hamzillah Binte Hamid and one Zakhir Bin Mohd Nor when he prepared correspondences and court documents relating to an adoption proceeding in the courts of Singapore, an offence punishable under Section 33(1) a of the Legal Profession Act. (PS 1492/2004 - 19^th charge, Exhibit P2)

(3) Between 8 August 2002 and 18 November 2002, being an unauthorized person, did act as an advocate or solicitor for one Park Kyeung Min (“the client”) when he prepared letters and mitigation relating to a criminal proceeding against the client in the courts of Singapore, an offence under Section 33(1)a of the Legal Profession Act. (PS 1493/2004 - 20^th charge, Exhibit P3)

(4) Between 14 April 2003 and 17 June 2003, being an unauthorized person, did act as an advocate or solicitor for one Iskandar Bin Ahmad Jamali (“the client”) when he prepared letters and mitigation relating to a criminal proceeding against the client in the courts of Singapore, an offence under Section 33(1)a of the Legal Profession Act. (PS 1502/2004 – 29^th charge, Exhibit P4)

(5) Between 24 July 2002 and 5 May 2002, being an unauthorized person, willfully sent letters using the letterhead of M/s M. L. Mayeh & Co which bore the description “Advocates & Solicitors” to one M/s Shore Restaurant Pte Ltd and one M/s Kuek & Kuek Pte Ltd, implying that he was duly authorized to act as an advocate or a solicitor, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 33(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act. (PS 1507/2004 – 34^th charge, Exhibit P5)

(6) Between 27 June 2002 and 7 October 2003, being an unauthorized person, willfully sent letters using the letterhead of M/s M. L. Mayeh & Co which bore the description “Advocates & Solicitors” to one M/s Senior Hydraulic & Hardware Supply and one M/s Kuek & Kuek Pte Ltd, implying that you were duly authorized to act as an advocate or a solicitor, an offence under Section 33(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act. (PS 1515/2004, 42^nd charge -Exhibit P6)

3. Upon his conviction on these six charges, accused admitted to the offences in twenty nine other similar counts under section 33(1)(a) and 14 similar counts under section 33(1)(b) Legal Profession Act and consented to these charges be taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing.

The Facts

4. The facts as found in the Statement of Facts (Exhibit B) for the six proceeded charges revealed that the accused, who is 46 years old, had acted as an advocate or solicitor without the requisite practicing certificate for seven clients for the period from 2 April 2002 till 7 October 2003.

5. Section 32 of the Legal Profession Act prohibits any person from practicing as an advocate and solicitor or from doing any act as an advocate or a solicitor unless his name is on the roll and he has in force a practicing certificate. The accused obtained his LLB (Honours) from London in 1989 and was admitted as an advocate and solicitor in February 1991. Between March 1991 and June 1997, he was employed in M/s Rayney Wong & Co as a legal assistant and salaried partner. He was made a salaried partner of the firm in 1994 or 1995. In July 1997, the accused started his own law firm styled M. L. Mayeh & Co.

6. The accused last held a practising certificate that expired on 31 March 2002. He did not renew his practising certificate thereafter, as he claimed he could not afford to pay the professional indemnity insurance. Despite this, he continued to act as an advocate and solicitor by representing existing and new clients in criminal and civil proceedings in the Subordinate Courts, filed mitigation pleas, affidavits and other documents to the Courts, submitted legal representation to the Attorney-General Chambers in the capacity as a solicitor and represented himself to the Prison authorities as the solicitor for accused persons to visit these persons who were in remand there. None of his clients nor the parties with whom he dealt with were aware that he was an unauthorized person acting contrary to the Legal Profession Act. He finally closed down his law firm in October 2003. He had also misled the authorities into believing that he is an authorized person under the Legal Profession Act. In addition, he had filed with the Courts, affidavits containing this false information. He even made Court appearances representing his clients in civil litigation, family matters and criminal proceedings. For the six proceeded charges, he profited a sum of $11,080. The total financial gain that he obtained from all the charges was $119,485 (Exhibit C). Extracts from the Statement of Facts detailing the extent of his illegal acts in each of the six proceeded charges are reproduced below for easy reference:

“FACTS RELATING TO PS 1477 OF 2004

1. On or about 10 August 2001, one Jenny Wee May Ling (“the client” or “Jenny Wee”) engaged the service of the accused to represent her in a divorce matter. Since then till March 2002, the accused had done some work to proceed with the matrimonial proceedings for the client, such as attending court hearings and filing of affidavits, a divorce petition, and newspaper advertisements. A decree nisi was made on 23 November 2001.

2. Investigations revealed that the accused continued to act for Ms Jenny Wee after 31 March 2002 when he did not have a practising certificate.

3. On 2 April 2002, the accused signed a praecipe as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for Ms Jenny Wee that was addressed to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts to allow his clerk to cause a search in the court file in respect of the client’s divorce matter.

4. On 23 April 2002, the accused filed with the Subordinate Courts an affidavit stating that he was an advocate and solicitor of M. L. Mayeh & Co and affirmed, inter alia, that no pending appeal was made against the decree nisi, and a notice of application for the Decree Nisi to be made absolute. A certificate of making the decree nisi absolute was made on 15 May 2002.

5. Between 2 April 2002 and 23 April 2002, the accused had filed documents in Court on 2 occasions pertaining to this matter.

6. The accused had acted as an advocate and solicitor for Ms Jenny Wee between 2 April 2002 and 23 April 2002, whilst being an unauthorised person.

FACTS RELATING TO PS 1492 OF 2004

7. On or about 27 June 2002, one Madam Hamzillah Binte Hamid and one Mr Zakhir Bin Mohd Nor (“the clients” or “Mr Zakhir”) engaged the service of the accused to act for them in an adoption matter.

8. On 6 August 2002, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Superintendent of Changi Women Prison to arrange an appointment to see an inmate to interview her and sign documents for the adoption proceedings.

9. On 17 October 2002, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, furnishing adoption petition, summons in chambers, and his affidavit, to obtain the Attorney-General’s consent to act as guardian ad litem of the adopted child.

10. On 8 November 2002, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers furnishing draft copies of Order of Courts for vetting.

11. On 11 November 2002, the accused sent a letter to the said clients to request for payment due.

12. On 9 December 2002, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers furnishing copies of the extracted Court Orders and requesting for the investigation report and affidavit from the Child Welfare Service.

13. On 14 April 2003, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers enclosing a cheque payment for the affidavit from the Child Welfare Service.

14. On 6 August 2003, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers furnishing notice of further hearing of petition and the affidavit from the Child Welfare Service Officer.

15. On 22 August 2003, as the solicitor (of M. L. Mayeh & Co) for the said clients, the accused sent a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers furnishing a draft copy of the adoption order for vetting.

16. The accused had acted as an advocate and solicitor for Mdm Hamzillah and Mrs Zakhir between 6 August 2002 and 22 August 2003, whilst being an unauthorised person.

FACTS RELATING TO PS 1493 OF 2004

17. On 8 August 2002, the accused represented one Park Kyeung Min (“the client” or “Mr Park”) in a criminal proceeding against the client, in Subordinate Court 26. On the same day, the accused sent a letter to the Superintendent of Queenstown...