The Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 09 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 2
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 991 of 1995
• Date: 09 January 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Dennis Tan (Toh Tan & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 2
• Defendant Counsel: Selva K Naidu (Palakrishnan & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether respondent ought to be struck off,Abetting clients to produce fase medical certificates,Whether suspension sufficient,Appropriate penalty,ss 83 & 98 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161),Whether fact that respondent was not prime mover relevant,Legal Profession,Professional conduct

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): On 1 December 1995 we ordered that the respondent, an advocate and solicitor, be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors and that he shall pay the costs of the Law Society of these `show cause` proceedings as well as the costs of the Law Society before the Disciplinary Committee. We now give our reasons for making these orders.

The respondent was convicted in the district court on 19 March 1994 on three counts of abetting his clients to omit attending court by producing false medical certificates, an offence under s 174 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), and fined $1,000 on each count.

The Council of the Law Society took cognizance of these three convictions and acted under s 85(2) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) (the Act) by laying an information on 5 September 1994 touching upon the conduct of the respondent to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel. In due course an Inquiry Committee recommended a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Committee as to whether the respondent`s convictions implied a defect of character which made him unfit for his profession. On 14 September 1995 the Disciplinary Committee reported as follows:

The respondent by his solicitors M/s Palakrishnan & Partners conceded that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act and as such did not contest the matter at the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee on 27 June 1995.

At the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee on 27 June 1995 the Disciplinary Committee was of the view that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act as the conviction of the respondent on the three charges under s 174 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) pertained to acts done by the respondent acting in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor thus implying a defect of character which made him unfit for his profession.

Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to show cause before this court pursuant to s 98(1) of the Act why he should not be dealt with under s 83(1) thereof.

Before us, counsel for the respondent also did not dispute that `due cause` existed under s 83(2)(a) of the Act and confined his address only as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. The penalty prescribed by s 83(1) of the Act is a striking off the roll of advocates and solicitors or a suspension from practice for any...