Re Advani

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 January 1988
• Date: 22 January 1988
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 991 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Advani Jiwat G

[1988] SGHC 12

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Lai Kew Chai J

and

L P Thean J

Originating Summons No 991 of 1987

High Court

Legal Profession–Professional conduct–Allegation of grossly improper conduct in discharge of professional duty–Preparatory acts to forge will of deceased father-in-law–Show cause action–Whether lawyer acting under highly exceptional circumstances–Whether preparatory acts amounting to grossly improper conduct–Appropriate sanction for improper conduct–Sections 80 and 94 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1985 Rev Ed)

The respondent who was an advocate and solicitor was extremely distraught when his father-in-law passed away suddenly. After he was handed an onion skin sheet of paper in blank except for the signature of the deceased, he instructed his secretary to make a photocopy of the onion skin sheet of paper and cut the photocopy to the size of the onion skin sheet of paper. Then he dictated but did not complete a will in which the deceased was to give all his property to the wife of the deceased. The respondent was called upon to show cause before a court of three judges why he should not be dealt with under the provisions of s 80 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1985 Rev Ed) (“s 80”).

Held, dismissing the application:

In normal circumstances such preparatory acts of forgery as the respondent did, which did not exceed the limit of preparation to the stage of an attempt to commit the offence of forgery, would amount to grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 80 and merit the appropriate punishment as therein prescribed. However, each case had to be decided on its own special facts and much depended on the circumstances in which such preparatory acts were carried out. In the instant case, the circumstances were highly exceptional: the respondent would not have benefited directly or indirectly from the forgery; was purely motivated by his emotional desire to respect and give effect to the wishes or intention of his late father-in-law; occasioned no harm to anyone by his preparatory acts; and abandoned the preparatory acts as soon as he realised that what he was doing was improper. The preparatory acts carried out by the respondent amounted to improper, but not grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, and merited a severe reprimand under s 94 (1) of the Legal Profession Act: at [4] and [6].

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 80, 94 (consd); ss 80 (2), 94 (1)

George Carman QC, H E Cashin and Myint...