The Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 05 February 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 24
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1407 of
• Date: 05 February 2001
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew Ong and Kendall Tan (Rajah & Tann)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 24
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Standard of judgment,s 83(2)(h)Legal Profession Act (Cap 161),Appropriate sanction,Legal Profession,Solicitor’s lien,Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor -Respondent repeatedly failing to deliver documents

(delivering the gounds of decision of the court): Pursuant to an order made by Judicial Commissioner Chan Seng Onn, Mr Arjan Chotrani Bisham, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of 14 years` standing, was required to show cause why he should not be dealt with according to the provisions of s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) (`the Act`). Pursuant to s 98(5) of the Act, the Law Society of Singapore (`Law Society`) applied by way of motion to have the order to show cause made absolute.

The facts

The complainant, Mr Paviter Singh Bajaj, was Mr Arjan`s erstwhile client. In 1995, Mr Arjan had acted for Mr Paviter and one Mrs Mahtani in the attempted purchase of a property known as 72 Serangoon Road (`the first property`). Later that same year Mr Arjan was again instructed by Mr Paviter to act for him in the attempted purchase of 25 other properties (`the 25 properties`). The attempts to purchase these properties were unsuccessful and both Mr Paviter and Mrs Mahtani suffered substantial losses as a result.

On or about 20 April 1998 Mr Paviter sought advice from the firm of Drew & Napier (`D&N`) concerning his rights against Mr Arjan. D&N, through Mr Hri Kumar, asked Mr Paviter for a complete set of all the documents pertaining to the aborted purchases of all the properties. Mr Paviter informed him that he did not have the documents and D&N began what was to turn out to be an arduous attempt to obtain copies of all the relevant documents in Mr Arjan`s possession.

The saga began on 4 May 1998 when D&N wrote to Mr Arjan to ask for copies of all the relevant files. No response was received and a reminder was sent out on 9 May 1998. On 12 and 13 May 1998, D&N tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr Arjan through the telephone. On 18 May 1998, Mr Paviter himself wrote to Mr Arjan. On 21 May 1998, D&N sent another reminder to Mr Arjan. Following this, a meeting was arranged between Mr Paviter, Mr Kumar and Mr Arjan. This took place on 23 May 1998. At the meeting Mr Arjan informed the others that he was in the process of making copies of the files and that he would send the copies of the files he had already copied to D&N by 26 May 1998 while the rest would be copied and sent by 31 May 1998.

On 25 May 1998, a letter was sent to remind Mr Arjan of the deadline he had committed himself to at the meeting. However, the deadline passed without the delivery of any of the documents promised. On 28 May 1998, D&N wrote to Mr Arjan again and set him a deadline - he was to deliver the copies of the files he had already copied by 5pm on 29 May 1998 and he was to deliver the copies of the files he had yet to copy by 5pm on 1 June 1998.

Nothing more was heard from Mr Arjan and on 5 June 1998 Mr Paviter again wrote to him and set 8 June 1998 as the next deadline. In that letter, Mr Paviter warned that he would refer the matter to the Law Society if the deadline was not met. Mr Arjan did not respond and D&N tried to contact him through the telephone on 9 and 10 June 1998. These attempts were unsuccessful and on 11 June 1998, D&N sent another letter reiterating the request for the copies of the files.

On 25 June 1998 another unsuccessful telephone call was followed by another letter from D&N. On 26 June 1998 Mr Paviter contacted D&N and told Mr Kumar that Mr Arjan had called him to say that the copies of the files relating to the attempted purchase of the first property were ready for collection. Mr Kumar duly collected these documents.

On 15 July 1998, D&N wrote to Mr Arjan again to ask for the documents pertaining to the 25 properties. There was no response to this letter. On 27 July 1998, D&N tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr Arjan through the telephone and on 28 July another letter was sent. In this letter, among other things, D&N informed Mr Arjan that Mr Paviter had lost his patience with him and had set 30 July 1998 as the final deadline, beyond which he would proceed to enforce his rights. On the same day another unsuccessful attempt was made to contact Mr Arjan on the telephone. The deadline passed without any response from Mr Arjan and on 5 August 1998, Mr Paviter made what was to become the first of two complaints to the Law Society concerning Mr Arjan`s conduct with regards to the documents pertaining to his attempted purchase of the properties.

The complaint was referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel and an Inquiry Committee (`IC`) was duly constituted. Mr Arjan did not avail himself of the opportunities to explain his conduct to the IC and on 29 October 1998, the IC determined, in IC Proceedings No 42 of 1998 and in Mr Arjan`s absence, that a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Committee was not necessary and, pursuant to s 86(7) of the Act, recommended to the Council that Mr Arjan be made to bear a penalty of $5,000.

On 5 December 1998, the Law Society wrote to Mr Arjan to inform him of the IC`s recommendation and to ask if he wanted to make any submissions to the Council before it deliberated on the imposition of the penalty. Mr Arjan did not respond to this letter and the Law Society sent a reminder on 4 January 1999 giving him until 14 January 1999 to state if he wished to be heard on the question of the imposition of the penalty. A further reminder was sent on 18 January 1999. Apparently Mr Arjan had indicated verbally that he wished to tender written submissions for the Council`s consideration and that he would do so by 20 February 1999. On 23 February 1999, the Law Society wrote to confirm this verbal indication.

The Council`s meeting was postponed to 19 March 1999 and Mr Arjan was duly reminded to submit his written submissions by 8 March 1999. Mr Arjan failed to do so and the Council determined, on 19 March 1999 and in accordance with s 87(1)(b) of the Act, `that no cause of sufficient gravity exists for a formal investigation but that the advocate and solicitor should be ordered to pay a penalty under section 88`. Section 88 gave the Council the power to order a penalty of not more than $5,000.

Mr Arjan was notified of this decision on 23 March 1999. He paid the full sum by way of a cheque dated 22 April 1999. However, Mr Arjan continued to withhold copies of the files pertaining to the 25 properties until 25 May 1999 when he wrote to D&N to inform them that they could collect the copies on 31 May 1999 or 1 June 1999. However, there was a further delay when, on 31 May 1999, Mr Arjan informed D&N that he was not ready to hand over the documents that day but that he would be ready on 2 June 1999. On 2 June 1999, D&N collected the documents from Mr Arjan`s office.

In the meantime, on 15 January 1999, Mr Paviter had made another complaint to the Law Society about Mr Arjan`s failure to deliver the copies of the...