lss_dt_reports: 33

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg · About: choco-up/sg-law-archive-data

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
33 d9a0732d0e1f9e352aa7b0fcaede1bee51c0fa09 In the Matter of Ryan Lin Longcai, an Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Ryan Lin Longcai, an Advocate and Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined under section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity exists for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act against the Respondent, a penalty in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 should be imposed. The Complainants alleged that the Respondent had disclosed confidential information pertaining to the Respondent’s clients while using the WhatsApp mobile application. Fourteen charges detailing the various disclosures and pursuant to section 83(2)(h) of the Act were preferred against the Respondent. The Respondent admitted to the charges at the onset of the proceedings. Findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) The DT found that the Respondent had breached the Rules on confidentiality but there was no evidence that the any of the clients had suffered any loss or damage as a result. Further, the DT acknowledged that the disclosures were related to personal communications between the Respondent and the 1st Complainant. In the DT’s view the Respondent was a foolish young man who in the pursuit of the 1st Complainant, forgot his duty to keep matters relating to his professional engagement confidential. His naiveté that these disclosures would not come back to haunt him when he ended his relationship with the 1st Complainant, attested to his youth and foolishness. However, this did not excuse the Respondent from what he had done. The DT noted that whilst there were no cases in Singapore involving a breach of confidentiality which reached the DT stage, the DT was guided by several cases from the Commonwealth jurisdictions which suggested that the imposition of a fine was an appropriate form of punishment. The DT determined that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity exists pursuant to section 93(1)(b) for disciplinary action, a fine in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 should be imposed on the Respondent. The Council’s Decision Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and imposed a penalty of $15,000 on the Respondent.     2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ In the Matter of Ryan Lin Longcai, an Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ 961

Links from other tables