Re Marshall David

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeChua F A J
Judgment Date07 October 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] SGCA 12
Citation[1972] SGCA 12
Subject MatterUndertaking given to Attorney-General in the presence of the Chief Justice,Whether amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duties,Sections 84(2)(b) and 98 Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed),Legal Profession,Breach of undertaking,Professional conduct
Defendant CounselLAJ Smith and Eugene Phoa (Eugene Phoa & Co)
Plaintiff CounselHE Cashin on behalf of the applicants
Published date19 September 2003
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 275
Date07 October 1972

The respondent is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court who has been in practice for nearly 35 years and is generally acknowledged by the members of the legal profession to be one of its leaders.

He now appears before us to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 84 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Ed). This section is, so far as material, in the following terms:

(1) All advocates and solicitors shall be subject to the control of the Supreme Court and shall be liable on due cause shown to be struck off the roll or suspended from practice for any period not exceeding two years or censured.

(2) Such due cause may be shown by proof that such person -

...

(b) has been guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty ...



It is unnecessary to set out in full the other relevant provisions of the Act. Suffice it to say that under s 86 any complaint of the conduct of an advocate and solicitor in his professional capacity must be made in the first place to the Law Society and the Council of the Law Society must refer the complaint to the inquiry committee which is a committee comprising five members or former members of the Council appointed by the Council.

Under s 87 the inquiry committee is required to investigate the matter and report to the Council on the matter. Under s 88 the Council is required to consider the report of the inquiry committee and according to the circumstances of the case the Council shall determine whether or not there should be a formal investigation by a disciplinary committee.

Under s 90, if the Council determines under s 88 that there should be a formal investigation, the Council shall apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a disciplinary committee which shall hear and investigate the matter. Under s 93 the disciplinary committee shall record its findings in relation to the facts of the case and according to those facts shall determine whether or not cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under s 84. They are required to draw up their findings and determination in the form of a report of which a copy must be submitted to the Chief Justice and to the Society. The advocate and solicitor concerned and the person who made the complaint are entitled to a copy of the report on application.

By s 94, if the determination of the disciplinary committee under s 93 is that cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under s 84, the Law Society must proceed to make an application in accordance with the provisions of s 98.

By s 98 an application that a solicitor be struck off the roll or suspended from practice or censured shall be made by originating summons ex parte to a judge of the Supreme Court sitting in chambers for an order calling upon the solicitor to show cause. The order to show cause is served on the solicitor concerned and the application shall then be heard by a court of three judges of whom the Chief Justice must be one. The judge who made the order to show cause is not thereby disqualified from sitting as a member of the court of three judges.

The complaint in the present case arose out of four habeas corpus applications made by way of originating motions to the High Court made by four persons who had been arrested and detained under orders of detention made under the Internal Security Act. All these four persons were connected with a leading Singapore Chinese language daily newspaper, the Nanyang Siang Pau being the managing director, the editor-in-chief, a leader writer and the public relations manager of the Nanyang Siang Pau . Affidavits in support of their habeas corpus applications were affirmed by each of these four persons and these affidavits were filed in the Registry of the court. The respondent in the present case acted as the solicitor for the four detained persons. The Attorney General represented the government. The motions were on the list for hearing before the Chief Justice in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • The Law Society of Singapore v Singham Dennis Mahendran
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 January 2001
    ...[1999] 4 SLR 157 (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel [1999] 1 SLR (R) 266; [1999] 1 SLR 696 (refd) Marshall David, Re [1971-1973] SLR (R) 554; [1972-1974] SLR 132 (folld) McDow, In re 354 SE 2d 383 (1987) (refd) People v Gibbons 685 P 2d 168 (1984) (refd) People v Zeilinger 81......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 August 2006
    ...v Lim Kiap Khee [2001] 2 SLR (R) 398; [2001] 3 SLR 616 (folld) Marshall David, Re; Law Society of Singapore v Marshall David Saul [1971-1973] SLR (R) 554; [1972-1974] SLR 132 (folld) Ong Tiang Choon, Re [1977-1978] SLR (R) 291; [1978-1979] SLR 240 (folld) Rajasooria v Disciplinary Committee......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Rasif David
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 January 2008
    ...v Lim Kiap Khee [2001] 2 SLR (R) 398; [2001] 3 SLR 616 (refd) Marshall David, Re; Law Society of Singapore v Marshall David Saul [1971-1973] SLR (R) 554; [1972-1974] SLR 132 (folld) Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore [2007] 4 SLR (R) 641; [2007] 4 SLR 641 (refd) Solicitor, In re......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 March 2000
    ...v Vardan VCS [1999] 1 SLR (R) 605; [1999] 2 SLR 229 (folld) Marshall David, Re; Law Society of Singapore v Marshall David Saul [1971-1973] SLR (R) 554; [1972-1974] SLR 132 (folld) Mercer v Pharmacy Board of Victoria [1968] VR 72 (refd) Weare, a Solicitor, In re; In re The Solicitors Act, 18......
  • 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