The Law Society of Singapore v Prem Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 30 August 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 223
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 689 of 1999
• Date: 30 August 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1999
• Plaintiff Counsel: Fong Kwok Jen and Helene Ng (Fong Partners & Associates)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 223
• Defendant Counsel: Davinder Singh SC and Lim Lei Theng (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Professional conduct,Whether failure to deposit client's money into client's account technical offence,Lawyer failing to deposit client's money in client's account and to keep proper accounts,ss 83(1) & 83(2)(j) Legal Profession Act, rr 3 & 11(1)(a)(i) Legal Profession (Solicitor's Accounts) Rules,Statement of facts containing all elements necessary for charges,Whether disciplinary committee may call for detailed statement of facts and look at facts surrounding offence even though respondent admits to charges,Disciplinary procedures

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): The abovenamed, Prem Singh (`the respondent`), an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, was ordered, upon the application by the Law Society of Singapore (`Law Society`) under s 98 the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed) (`the Act`), to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 83 of the Act. At the conclusion of the hearing we ordered that the respondent be suspended from practice for a period of two years. We now give our reasons.

The facts

The matter arose from a letter of complaint dated 21 October 1996 made by one Lan Tze Jian (`the complainant`) to the Law Society against the respondent. The complainant had previously been a party to divorce proceedings in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal where he had been ordered to transfer the matrimonial property to his ex-wife. The complainant failed to effect the transfer of the property as required by the court order, whereupon his ex-wife applied to court by Summons-in-Chambers No 5037 of 1995 to compel him to deliver to her solicitors the duplicate lease to the property. The firm of Edmund Pereira & Partners was then acting for the complainant. However, prior to the hearing of the application, the complainant decided to have a change of solicitors, and he instructed the respondent to act for him instead. He instructed the respondent rather late, and presumably on that account the respondent did not have sufficient time to file the notice of change of solicitors prior to the hearing of the summons-in-chambers, which was fixed for 13 September 1995 before the assistant registrar. Accordingly, no such notice of change of solicitors was filed by the respondent at that point in time. That notwithstanding, the respondent with the complainant attended the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the assistant registrar made an order that the complainant deliver the duplicate lease to the solicitors for his ex-wife within ten days from the date of hearing.

Following the hearing, at the respondent`s request, two cheques were issued by the complainant and given to the respondent. The first cheque dated 15 September 1995 was for the sum of $3,500, while the second cheque dated 21 September 1995 was for the sum of $18,000. The respondent did not deposit the proceeds of both these cheques into his firm`s client account. These sums were paid to the respondent for certain works carried out and to be carried out by the respondent.

On 21 October 1996, the complainant wrote a letter to the Law Society of Singapore making a complaint against the respondent. The gist of the complaint was that the two sums of $3,500 and $18,000 were paid to the respondent as deposits for work to be done and for future expenses incurred on the complainant`s behalf and that the respondent had failed to carry out the work but retained the deposits all the same, despite repeated requests by the complainant for the return of his moneys.

Investigations were soon carried out by the inquiry committee against the respondent, and that committee recommended that there should be a formal investigation by a disciplinary committee, and accordingly the Council of the Law Society applied to the Chief Justice to appoint a disciplinary committee. On 27 May 1998, the Chief Justice appointed a disciplinary committee (`the Committee`) pursuant to s 90 of the Act to hear and investigate the complaint against the respondent.

The proceedings before the Committee

Before the Committee, on the basis of the complaint, the Law Society preferred the following charges against the respondent:

First Charge

That you on or about 15 September 1995 did fail to pay into a client`s account a sum of $3,500 received by you as client`s money from one Lan Tze Jian [ie the complainant] other than as permitted by r 3 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors` Accounts) Rules and you have thereby contravened s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Second Charge

That you on or about 21 September 1995 did fail to pay into client`s account a sum of $18,000 received by you as client`s money from one Lan Tze Jian other than as permitted by r 3 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors` Accounts) Rules and you have thereby contravened s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Third Charge

That you between 15 September 1995 and 21 September 1995 did fail, as required by r 11(1)(a)(i) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors` Accounts) Rules, to keep properly written up such cash books, ledgers and journals and such other books and accounts as may be necessary to show your dealing with two sums of client`s money comprising of a sum of $3,500 paid to you on or around 15 September 1995 and a sum of $18,000 paid to you on or around 21 September 1995 by one Lan Tze Jian and you have thereby contravened s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

The statement of facts

These charges were set out in the statement of case of the Law Society dated 8 July 1998. At the hearing held on 20 October 1998, some minor amendments were made to the account of the facts as contained in the statement of case. After the amendments had been made, the facts as narrated in the statement of case were as follows:

The respondent on or about 13 September 1995 accepted instructions from one Lan Tze Jian (`the complainant`) to act for him in place of Messrs Edmond Peirera & Partners to act in Summons-in-Chambers No 5037 of 1995 on the matter of delivering up of the duplicate lease of the HDB flat to Messrs Lawrence Chua & Partners, the solicitors for the complainant`s ex-wife and then subsequently to render advice in relation to judgment in CA 14/92 dated 23 March 1993.

On or about 15 September 1995, the complainant paid to the respondent by a POSB cheque No 567853 dated 15 September 1995 a sum of $3,500 towards his fees. The respondent did not pay the moneys received into his client`s account nor did he cause to be entered into his ledger the receipt of the moneys.

On or about 21 September 1995, the respondent received from the complainant a further sum of $18,000 (vide POSB cheque No 567856 dated 21 September 1995) towards his fees. The respondent also did not pay the moneys received into his client account nor did he account for the amount by causing an entry to be made in his ledger of the receipt of the amount.

The respondent agreed with the account of the facts as stated and admitted all the three charges before the Committee on 20 October 1998. The Committee then said that it would report the matter to the Chief Justice, and asked for an agreed statement of facts to be submitted in the meantime. A statement of facts dated 20 October 1998 was thus submitted to the Committee. The account of the facts in the statement of facts was identical to that stated in the statement of case.

However, on or about 14 November 1998, the Committee told both counsel for the Law Society and the respondent that the statement of facts tendered was lacking in detail. As a result, a draft amended statement of facts was prepared by counsel for the Law Society, the relevant portion of which read as follows:

In August 1995, the complainant`s ex-wife made application to compel the complainant to deliver the duplicate lease of the HDB flat to her. On or about 13 September 1995, the complainant instructed the respondent, who accepted the instructions to act for him in place of Messrs Edmond Pereira & Partners in Summons-in-Chamber No 5037 of 1995 on the matter of delivering up the duplicate lease of the HDB flat to Messrs Lawrence Chua & Partners, the solicitors for the complainant`s ex-wife. He was also asked to render advice in relation to the judgment in CA 14/92 dated 23 March 1993.

The respondent asked for a deposit and on or about 15 September 1995, the complainant paid to the respondent by a POSB cheque No 567853 dated 15 September 1995 a sum of $3,500 towards his fees as requested. At the respondent`s request, the cheque drawn was a cash cheque. The respondent did not pay the moneys received into his client`s

...