Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeSundaresh Menon CJ,Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA,Steven Chong JCA
Judgment Date16 November 2021
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 4 of 2020 (Summons No 2 of 2021)
Seow Theng Beng Samuel
and
Law Society of Singapore

[2021] SGHC 258

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA and Steven Chong JCA

Originating Summons No 4 of 2020 (Summons No 2 of 2021)

Court of Three Judges

Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Holding disciplinary proceedings in abeyance — Lawyer pleading guilty to charges in disciplinary proceedings — Lawyer adducing psychiatric evidence of adjustment disorder before disciplinary tribunal — Disciplinary tribunal finding cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action — Lawyer pleading guilty to criminal charges arising from acts forming subject matter of some professional misconduct charges — District Court convening Newton hearing — Newton hearing ongoing more than one year later — Whether to hold disciplinary proceedings before Court of Three Judges in abeyance pending conclusion of Newton hearing

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The mere fact of concurrent criminal and disciplinary proceedings did not necessarily mean that either set of proceedings should be stayed or held in abeyance. The court might grant a stay of one set of proceedings where there was a real risk of serious prejudice which might lead to injustice in either or both sets of proceedings. The court would only exercise its discretion to stay either set of concurrent proceedings sparingly and with great care: at [14(a)] and [14(b)].

(2) If the court was satisfied that, absent a stay, there would be a real risk of serious prejudice that might lead to injustice, it had to balance that risk against the countervailing considerations. The strong public interest in seeing that the disciplinary process was unimpeded would almost always be a relevant countervailing consideration: at [14(c)] and [15].

(3) The risk of inconsistent findings did not justify holding OS 4 in abeyance. Since mitigating factors carried less weight in disciplinary proceedings than in criminal proceedings, even if the District Court accepted the applicant's AD as a mitigating factor, his AD would likely and legitimately be of less consequence in OS 4. However, this was not at all indicative of any real risk of serious prejudice that might lead to injustice in OS 4 and/or the criminal proceedings: at [16].

(4) The risk of inconsistent findings was also wholly unrelated to whether both sets of proceedings took place sequentially. Such a risk was inherent in concurrent proceedings and would only cease to exist if either court were bound by the other's findings. It was clear that this court's findings in OS 4 would not be binding or determinative of the issues in the Newton hearing: at [17].

(5) The applicant had been content to plead guilty before the DT prior to the Newton hearing, even though he was already facing criminal charges by then. This showed that concurrent proceedings, and the attendant risk of inconsistent findings, were not inherently unjust. Even more significantly, the Law Society did not intend to adduce any rebuttal evidence in OS 4 and, instead, planned to deal with the psychiatric evidence adduced by the applicant in submissions. The applicant would therefore not be prejudiced if the Newton hearing and OS 4 were conducted in parallel: at [18].

(6) The delay in the prosecution of OS 4 was a matter not of a few weeks (as originally contemplated) but of many months – and, if the applicant's position was accepted, possibly of years. Such a long delay in the conduct and conclusion of OS 4 would surely undermine the overriding objectives of legal disciplinary proceedings, namely, the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession: at [19] and [20].

Case(s) referred to

Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang [2018] 5 SLR 1068 (folld)

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] 4 SLR 91 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2016] 5 SLR 1141 (folld)

Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian Sidambaram [2009] 4 SLR(R) 674; [2009] 4 SLR 674 (folld)

R v Executive Council of the Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Scheme [2002] EWHC 2086 (Admin) (folld)

Facts

The applicant was the managing director of his own law firm and owned and managed a talent management company at the material time. On 2 May 2019, the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) brought various charges against the applicant for physically and verbally abusing three of his employees. Criminal charges were filed against the applicant on 7 June 2019 in respect of some of the incidents that were also the subject matter of the professional misconduct charges.

The applicant pleaded guilty to the professional misconduct charges that corresponded to the incidents forming the subject matter of the criminal charges on 14 August 2019, and to the remaining charges on 19 November 2019. By then, he had tendered two psychiatric reports (“the 2019 reports”) to support his argument that he was suffering from adjustment disorder (“AD”) at the material time and that this had a bearing on his culpability. The disciplinary tribunal (“the DT”) placed little weight on the 2019 reports and found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 May 2022
    ...5 SLR 1261, HC (refd) Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua [2022] 3 SLR 1417 (refd) Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore [2022] 3 SLR 830 (refd) Facts The respondent was a solicitor of 20 years' standing. He was charged before a disciplinary tribunal under ss 83(2)(b)(i) and 83(2......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 28 October 2022
    ...to protect the public and uphold confidence in the integrity of the legal profession (Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore [2022] 3 SLR 830 at [16]) – were squarely engaged. This was because the respondent’s conduct affected, on two levels, the public for whose protection the r......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 18 May 2022
    ...hearing of OS 4 be held in abeyance, pending the completion of the Newton hearing. In Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGHC 258, we dismissed the respondent’s application, holding that he had failed to establish any real risk of serious prejudice to the conduct of OS......
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2021, December 2021
    • 1 December 2021
    ...[2021] 3 SLR 487. 31 CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 3 SLR 513. 32 CBB v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 977 at [38]. 33 [2022] 3 SLR 830. 34 Set out at para 22.71(c) above. 35 Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112. 36 [2022] 3 SLR 731. 37 Shanmugam M......

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