Re Wong Wai Loong Sean

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2022
• Docket Number: Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 100, 121, 124 and 125 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 2501, 3008, 3009 and 3010 of 2022)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters

[2022] SGHC 237

Sundaresh Menon CJ

Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 100, 121, 124 and 125 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 2501, 3008, 3009 and 3010 of 2022)

General Division of the High Court

Legal Profession — Admission — Applicants found to have cheated in Part B of Singapore Bar Examinations — Applicants not fit and proper persons to be admitted to Singapore Bar — Applicants seeking leave to withdraw applications to be admitted to Singapore Bar — Conditions to be imposed on applicants upon granting withdrawal — Considerations relevant for determining period for which applicants should undertake not to bring fresh application to be admitted

Held, allowing SUMs 2501, 3008, 3009 and 3010 on specified conditions:

General principles

(1) The core issue to be determined in cases like this and Re Tay Quan Li Leon[2022] SGHC 133 was whether the applicant for admission was suitable to be admitted in terms of her character. If she was not, the defect or defects in her character needed to be identified, and this was an inquiry which ought not to be taken lightly: at [3] and [4].

(2) In the particular context of an applicant found to have cheated in an examination, in determining the defect or defects of character such cheating incident revealed, it was relevant to examine: (a) the circumstances of the cheating; (b) the conduct of the applicant during investigations which followed the incident of cheating; (c) the nature and extent of subsequent disclosures made in the applicant's admission application; (d) any evidence of remorse; and (e) any evidence of efforts planned or already initiated towards rehabilitation. These considerations not only informed the determination of the applicant's character issues, but also how such issues could be addressed, as well as the amount of time the applicant would likely need to resolve them. This, in turn, informed the period for which the applicant ought to undertake not to bring a fresh application to be admitted: at [3], [5], [21], [30] and [63].

(3) The object of deferring an applicant's admission application was not punitive. A defined period of deferment served two purposes from two different perspectives. From the applicant's perspective, it served to provide a clear timeframe within which they should aim to resolve their character issues. Accordingly, when an applicant proposed a period of deferment, that period needed to be realistic and not overly optimistic. From the stakeholders' perspective, it was a period after which they should be confident that the applicant can, with best efforts, return with whatever that might be thought to be necessary to renew trust and satisfaction as to their suitability to be admitted. The stakeholders needed to be balanced in this regard; while it was their duty to protect the public interest by identifying individuals unsuitable for admission, they should not take an unduly pessimistic view of young applicants who had erred. The task of the court between these two perspectives, was to determine the right balance between views that were too optimistic and those that were too pessimistic: at [27].

Mr Wong

(4) The circumstances of Mr Wong's cheating were not to be understated. Lawyers were often faced with situations in which they had to take decisions quickly. Although it could sometimes be difficult to take quick decisions with due care, it was never difficult to make quick and honest decisions. This, alongside the fact that Mr Wong appropriated the work of another person as his own without seeking that person's permission, pointed to a serious defect in his character which would likely require some time to address: at [22] and [23].

(5) Mr Wong was given credit for the quick admission of his misconduct as well as his co-operation with the SILE's investigations. However, the extent of such credit was somewhat diminished by his failure to disclose his misconduct in his admissions affidavit. Mr Wong's attempt to explain that he genuinely believed that the SILE had forgiven his misconduct, and, therefore, that it did not need to be disclosed, was not reasonable. That said, his non-disclosure did not rise to the level of dishonesty. It was nevertheless indicative of a lack of candour in facing up to difficult situations, and therefore, some weight was given to his non-disclosure: at [11], [12], [14], [16] to [20] and [24].

(6) Note was taken of the fact that Mr Goh Pek San (“Mr Goh”) of P S Goh & Co had attested to Mr Wong's regret and remorse, his generally good character, as well as his willingness to work on his faults. Mr Goh also indicated that he would continue to supervise Mr Wong. Although Mr Wong did not give evidence on the steps he had taken or planned to take so as to work on the character issues this incident revealed, this was not counted against him as he had not been specifically asked to provide such information: at [25].

(7) Drawing these considerations together, Mr Wong was allowed to withdraw AAS 100 subject to undertaking not to bring a fresh admission application for no less than two years. Mr Wong was urged to reflect upon and identify the sources of and solutions to the specific character faults which underpinned his misconduct: at [5], [28] and [29].

Ms Ong, Mr Lim and Ms Au

(8) As Ms Ong and Mr Lim Au admitted their misconduct in respect of the Mediation paper, and they – alongside Ms Au – also admitted their misconduct in respect of the Ethics paper, these were taken into consideration. However, as the SILE did not provide an explanation for why it treated the trio differently in respect of the Criminal and Civil Litigation papers, it could not be determined if the SILE was being lenient in respect of the latter or harsh in respect of the former. This was a crucial point of uncertainty because Ms Ong, Mr Lim and Ms Au each maintained that they did not communicate during either paper. The import of concluding that the SILE was lenient in respect of the Civil Litigation paper was that the trio had not only been dishonest from the outset, but, also, that they lied in the affidavits placed before the court. This was too damning a conclusion to reach on the available information. Thus, the fact that Ms Ong, Mr Lim and Ms Au were denied passes in the Criminal Litigation paper was disregarded: at [49] to [51].

(9) The legitimacy of the SILE's finding was not being called into question. Its finding simply had to be disregarded because the specific issue to be determined was whether Ms Ong, Mr Lim and Ms Au were suitable to be admitted to the Bar in terms of their character. On the available information, the character issue to be gleaned from the SILE's decision in respect of the Criminal Litigation paper could not be ascertained: at [52] to [54].

(10) The severity of Mr Wong's conduct was reiterated in respect of Ms Ong. The seriousness of dishonest conduct, even if it flowed from a state of panic, was not to be understated. Particular weight was given to the fact that Ms Ong chose to consult her fellow candidates not once, but twice. Indeed, that it happened for a second time during her Ethics paper made an optimistic view of her character flaws quite untenable: at [64].

(11) Ms Ong's lack of candour during the SILE's investigations was dishonest and revealing of a character defect. The circumstances showed that, though she disclosed her misconduct at the second interview conducted by the SILE, the candour she displayed at this time was not underpinned by her honesty or remorse; rather, it reflected a degree of tactical realism, upon her realisation that there was no explanation she could give that could account for the similarities between her and Mr Lim's final answer to the Mediation paper, as well as her, Mr Lim's and Ms Au's answers to the Ethics paper. Weight was therefore given to her initial non-disclosure in determining the appropriate period for which her admissions application ought to be deferred: at [55] to [57] and [65].

(12) However, the fact that Ms Ong, Mr Lim and Ms Au did not fully disclose the extent of their misconduct in their admissions affidavits was not given any weight. Unlike Mr Wong, the trio at least mentioned their misconduct. Furthermore, their explanation that they believed that they only needed to make a general disclosure in their admissions affidavit subject to the provision of further information in a supplementary affidavit, was also accepted: at [59] to [62] and [65].

(13) Notice was taken of the volunteering and other activities in which Ms Wong was engaged since the cheating incidents. It was also noted that Mr Devadas Naidu of Metropolitan Law Corp, Ms Ong's supervising solicitor during her practice training, stated he would continue to mentor her: at [66].

(14) On the basis of these considerations, Ms Ong was allowed to withdraw AAS 121 subject to, importantly, the undertaking not to bring a fresh admission application for no less than three years: at [30] and [68].

(15) Mr Lim and Ms Au's misconduct was less severe than that of Mr Wong and Ms Ong because they did not act dishonestly in furtherance of their own interests. Nevertheless, they still failed to show the honesty and integrity expected of legal professionals in upholding general and institutional standards of conduct. Coupled with their candour with the SILE from the very outset, it was suitable for their admissions applications to be deferred for shorter periods. They were therefore allowed to withdraw AAS 124 and 125 respectively, subject to undertakings not to bring fresh applications to be admitted for no less than one year in respect of Mr Lim, and nine months in respect of Ms Au: at [69] to [75].

Case(s) referred to

CTA, Re[2022] SGHC 87 (refd)

Tay Quan Li Leon, Re[2022] SGHC 133 (refd)

Facts

This matter concerned four applications for admission to the Singapore Bar. The four applicants were, however, found...