Re Shan Rajagopal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 15 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 102
• Date: 16 September 1994
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 178 of 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Sreenivasan (Derrick Ravi & Partners)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 102
• Defendant Counsel: YM Jumabhoy (YM Jumabhoy & Co) and Azima Moiz (De Souza Tay & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: ss 83(1), 83(2)(b), 83(2)(j) & 93(1)(c) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161),Legal Profession,Whether respondent should be struck off the roll,Whether respondent took sufficient care to protect client's interests,Show cause action,Respondent borrowed money from client

Shan Rajagopal, also known as Shanmugaveloo Rajagopal (the respondent) was admitted as an advocate and solicitor on 16 August 1978. After a period of practice as an advocate and solicitor with the law firm of Tang Liang Hong & Associates, he set up his own practice in June 1981 under the name and style of `Rajagopal & Co` which he later changed to `Shan Rajagopal`. At all material times the respondent was the sole proprietor, firstly of `Rajagopal and Co` and then of `Shan Rajagopal`.

Sometime in late April or early May 1988 the respondent was instructed by one Muthuperavi s/o KV Mookaiyya (the complainant) to apply for the reinstatement of his Singapore Permanent Residence status which the complainant had surrendered on leaving for India some months before April 1988. The complainant paid the respondent a non-refundable fee of $3,000. On being advised by the respondent that the application for the reinstatement of the Singapore Permanent Residence status would be facilitated if the complainant offered to refund to the Central Provident Fund Board the moneys he had withdrawn from his Central Provident Fund account before leaving for India, the complainant arranged to repatriate from India a sum of $35,000 and to deposit it with the respondent. Accordingly on 6 May 1988, the complainant paid the respondent the sum of $35,000 which the respondent credited into his firm`s client account. The respondent issued the complainant a receipt which read - `being balance of his CPF money Re: Reinstatement of PR status`. On 9 May 1988 the respondent withdrew the entire sum of $35,000 for his own use, by two cheques drawn on his client account, one for $25,000 payable to him personally and the other for $10,000 in the form of a cash cheque. Both cheques were cleared on the same day, ie 9 May 1988.

From May 1988 onwards, the complainant made frequent inquiries of the respondent as to the status of the application for the restoration of his permanent residence as his current stay in Singapore was on a social visit pass. Each time he was told by the respondent that `the matter was pending`. When the duration of the complainant`s social visit pass, which was only for a limited period, was due to expire, the respondent would arrange for the complainant to go to Malaysia for a short period and then return to Singapore, when the complainant would be issued with another social visit pass for another limited period. This went on until 30 August 1989 when the respondent took the complainant to the Immigration Field Division Headquarters and secured the issue to the complainant of a Special Pass. On the expiry of the Special Pass the respondent arranged for the complainant to return to India on the pretext that it would be better for the complainant to return to India whilst his application for the restoration of his permanent residence was being processed by the authorities. The respondent arranged for the complainant to stay with his (the respondent`s) sister in India.

Sometime in late 1990 the complainant managed to return to Singapore again, although his permanent residence status had not been restored. He was in financial difficulties and had difficulty in supporting his family in India. Between 20 September 1990 and 21 October 1991 the respondent gave the complainant various sums of money for the complainant`s personal expenses and to remit to India, purportedly from the $35,000 the complainant had deposited with the respondent`s firm on 6 May 1988. The complainant acknowledged in writing that he had over this period received from the respondent a total of $11,250.

No progress being made by the respondent in the application to restore the complainant`s permanent residence, the complainant instructed other solicitors to act for him in the matter in place of the respondent on 21 November 1991. On being requested by the complainant`s new solicitors for the file relating to the complainant`s application for restoration of his permanent residence and the sum of $35,000 to be forwarded to them, the respondent claimed that the file had been misplaced. The respondent also failed to pay over the sum of $35,000 to the complainant`s new solicitors or to account for it. Accordingly the complainant made a formal complaint to the Law Society on 14 May 1992 founded on the facts we have summarised above. He also made a report to the police.

Initially the Law Society preferred four charges against the respondent. However, one day prior to the hearing before the disciplinary committee, the respondent paid the complainant all sums due to him. In consequence the complainant withdrew his complaint; furthermore the complainant became unavailable as a witness and a subpoena was ineffective to secure his presence at the hearing. In the circumstances the Law Society was compelled to drop two of the four charges initially preferred against the respondent and proceeded with two charges only which were as follows:

First charge

You, Shan Rajagopal, are charged that on or about 9 May 1988, in Singapore, while acting as solicitor for one Muthuperavi s/o Mookaiyya, had withdrawn the sum of $35,000 held in your clients` account on behalf of the said Muthuperavi s/o Mookaiyya in contravention of Rules 7 and 8(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors` Accounts) Rules (1990 Ed), within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Second charge

You, Shan Rajagopal, are charged that on or about 9 May 1988, in Singapore, while acting

...