Re an Advocate and Solicitor

Judgment Date31 January 1984
Date31 January 1984
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 456 of 1982
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Re Wee Harry Lee

[1984] SGHC 2

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

T S Sinnathuray J

and

F A Chua J

Originating Summons No 456 of 1982

High Court

Legal Profession–Disciplinary procedures–Complaint that advocate and solicitor's convictions implied defect of character which made him unfit for profession–Discharge of second show cause action–Autrefois convict–Issue estoppel or res judicata–Inherent jurisdiction to stay on ground of oppression and abuse of process–Principles applicable–Sections 84 (1), 84 (2) (a) and 84 (2) (b) Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed)–Section 213 Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed)–Legal Profession–Disciplinary procedures–Sentence–Material considerations–Whether in public interest or interest of profession to impose no penalty

The respondent's failure to report misappropriations committed by a legal assistant in his firm led to a set of disciplinary proceedings being brought against him under the Legal Profession Act (“the Act”). The show cause hearing resulted in the respondent being suspended from practice for two years. The respondent was also convicted on criminal charges based on his concealment of the offences. The present set of disciplinary proceedings were brought against the respondent to investigate the complaint that the respondent had been convicted of criminal offences implying a defect of character which made him unfit for his profession.

The respondent submitted that he was entitled to have the show cause order discharged on the grounds of: (a) autrefois convict; or (b) doctrine of estoppel, namely, issue estoppel or res judicatain its wider sense; and (c) the court's inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings on the ground that they were oppressive and an abuse of its process.

Held, ordering that the respondent be suspended from practice for two years:

(1) Even on the assumption that the doctrine of autrefois convict was available in disciplinary proceedings against an advocate and solicitor, the respondent's plea had to fail. The respondent had not been put to peril of disciplinary punishment for the same complaint or “offence” as that which he was charged as the legal characteristics of the first disciplinary proceedings were different from the present one: at [22] and [23].

(2) The plea of issue estoppel or res judicata in its wider sense, even if available in the present disciplinary proceedings, had not been successfully made out: at [25].

(3) On the assumption that the court in disciplinary proceedings under the Act had an inherent jurisdiction to stay the proceedings on the ground that they were oppressive and an abuse of its process, such power should be exercised only in the most exceptional cases, which did not apply here: at [28].

(4) Having regard to the circumstances and nature of the offence, the respondent's conviction clearly implied a defect of character which made him unfit for the profession within the meaning of s 84 (2) (a) of the Act: at [34].

(5) On the issue of sentencing, it would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the profession that no penalty was imposed: at [36].

Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254 (folld)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys [1977] AC 1 (refd)

Wee Harry Lee, Re [1981-1982] SLR (R) 181; [1980-1981] SLR 568, HC (refd)

Wee Harry Lee, Re [1981-1982] SLR (R) 537, PC (refd)

Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd [1975] AC 581 (folld)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 217,1970 Rev Ed)ss 84 (1), 84 (2) (a), 84 (2) (b) (consd); ss 58 (2),84, 85,87 (1), 88 (1),90, 94 (1),95, 98 (1)

Legal Profession (Amendment) Act1979 (Act 11 of 1979)

Penal Code (Cap 103,1970 Rev Ed)s 213 (consd);s 212

J Grimberg (Drew & Napier) for the Law Society of Singapore

Ross-Munro QC and C S Wu (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) for the respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The respondent, Harry Wee, was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court in 1948. He was the President of the Law Society for three successive years from 1975 to December 1977 and during this period and for many years previously he practised under the name of Braddell Brothers of which he is the sole proprietor.

2 In February 1976 he discovered that S Santhiran a legal assistant in his firm who had been in his employment since 1971 had misappropriated moneys from the firm's clients' account and on 8 March 1976 he knew that the misappropriation exceeded $200,000. He confronted Santhiran who admitted the amount was $298,270.75. After Santhiran's admission he did not report to the police and did not inform the Council of the Law Society of Santhiran's misdeeds but continued to employ Santhiran as a legal assistant of his firm and to allow Santhiran to appear in court and to handle new matters. The respondent, through an intermediary, also made an offer to Santhiran that if he made total restitution of the misappropriated moneys, the respondent would not report the matter to the police. By June 1976 he had obtained almost total restitution from Santhiran but he kept Santhiran in his employment until December 1976 when Santhiran left and set up a practice of his own. The respondent came to know of this in January 1977.

3 It was only on 30 April 1977 in a private and confidential letter to the Law Society marked for the attention of the then vice-president of the Law Society that the respondent disclosed that Santhiran had misappropriated Braddell Brothers' clients' moneys and that he would shortly be presenting a complaint against Santhiran for action to be taken by the Law Society. On 26 May 1977 he reported Santhiran's misappropriation to the police and on 27 May, he made a formal complaint against Santhiran to the Law Society. Throughout the relevant period he continued to hold office as president of the Law Society which office he vacated on 31 December 1977 and throughout the period as president of the Law Society he presided as chairman of the Council of the Law Society at all meetings of the Council (see s 58 (2) of the Legal Profession Act). No action appeared to have been taken by the Council on the respondent's complaint against Santhiran to the Law Society while he was president of the Law Society.

4 In March 1978 the new president, who was also the chairman of the Inquiry Committee appointed by the Council of the Law Society, wrote to the respondent to inform him that the Inquiry Committee had decided of its own motion to enquire into his conduct in delaying reporting Santhiran's admitted defalcations to the Law Society and his offer to Santhiran that he would not report to the police Santhiran's misappropriation as long as Santhiran admitted having committed them and made full restitution.

5 The respondent gave a written explanation and also appeared before the Inquiry Committee in May 1978. After the Inquiry Committee had reported its findings to the Council of the Law Society, the Council informed the respondent by a letter dated 20 July 1978 that the Council would apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Committee to investigate into the respondent's “failure to report the criminal breach of trust committed by Santhiran when he was a legal assistant in the firm of Braddell Brothers to the Law Society earlier”. The letter also stated that the finding of the Inquiry Committee “in respect of the allegation of accepting restitution in consideration of concealing an offence in contravention of s 213 of the Penal Code, the evidence was inconclusive”.

6 Prior to the Council's said letter of 20 July 1978 the respondent had, on 6 June 1978, been brought before a Magistrate's Court on nine charges under s 212 of the Penal Code. All these nine charges were based on allegations that the respondent had obtained or attempted to obtain restitution of moneys from Santhiran in consideration of his concealing offences of criminal breach of trust by Santhiran. The respondent was convicted on all nine charges on 7 November 1978 after a trial which lasted three weeks. He gave immediate notice of appeal against the convictions.

7 On 13 December 1978, on the application of the Council of the Law Society pursuant to s 90 of the Legal Profession Act (“the Act”) the Chief Justice appointed a Disciplinary Committee consisting of three senior practising advocates and solicitors to hear...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Foo San Kan & 23 Ors v Institut Akauntan Malaysia and Another
    • Malaysia
    • Unspecified court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 23 Mayo 1994
    ...Re [1992] 1 SLR (R) 595; [1992] 2 SLR 639 (refd) Tang King Kai, Re [1991] 1 SLR (R) 282; [1991] SLR 527 (refd) Wee Harry Lee, Re [1983-1984] SLR (R) 274; [1984-1985] SLR 323 (refd) Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [1988] 1 SLR (R) 455; [1988] SLR 510 (distd) Wong Juan Swee v ......
  • The Law Society of Singapore v Edmund Nathan
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 Julio 1998
    ...the disciplinary proceedings in Harry Wee `s case are set out in the judgment of Wee Chong Jin CJ at [1984] 1 MLJ 331 at pp 332-335; [1984-1985] SLR 323 at pp 324-328. They may be summarised as follows: (i). Harry Wee, an advocate and solicitor, admitted in 1948, was president of the Law So......
  • The Law Society of Singapore v Chia Shih Ching James
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 Septiembre 1984
    ...His conduct was reprehensible and his name was accordingly ordered to be struck off from the roll: at [51]. Wee Harry Lee, Re [1983-1984] SLR (R) 274; [1984-1985] SLR 323 (refd) Shannon Realties Ltd v Ville de St Michel [1924] AC 185 (folld) Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed)ss 84,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT