lss_dt_reports: 46

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
46	48181f4ee68f4912c2f119773c1d94e66935553f	In the Matter of Charan Singh s/o Bantar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Charan Singh s/o Bantar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by the Complainants, for whom the Respondent had acted in the sale and purchase of a Property (the Property). The Respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of 28 years’ standing. At all material times, the Respondent was the sole proprietor of M/s Charan Singh & Co. In the sale and purchase of the Property, the Complainants were to be paid $280,000 (the Sum) from the sale proceeds of the Property. The Respondent failed to ensure that the Complainants were paid the Sum before allowing completion of the sale of the Property or to ensure that the Complainants received the Sum upon completion of the sale of the Property. The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Tan Puay Boon, SC and Mr Chong Yee Leong as DT member. Three alternative charges were proceeded against the Respondent: First Alternative Charge For misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) in that the Respondent had failed to inform and/or take instructions from the Complainants on the completion of the sale and purchase of the Property. Second Alternative Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act in that the Respondent provided M/s KL Lim Law Practice with a copy of the signed transfer document and informing M/s KL Lim Law Practice to proceed unconditionally with the completion of the sale and purchase of the property in addition to failing to advise the Complainants to take the necessary steps to ensure that they receive the Sum upon completion of the sale and purchase of the Property. Third Alternative Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act in that the Respondent had failed to follow up with M/s KL Lim Law Practice on the Sum due to the Complainants from the completion of the sale and purchase of the Property. Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The DT found that the Alternative Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts, and submissions of both Counsel as well as the case authorities, the DT agreed and accepted that the Respondent’s acts of misconduct did not constitute cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action to exist under section 83 of the Act, as required under section 93(1)(c) of the same Act. Pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act, the DT determines that, while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that the Respondent pay the Law Society S$2,500.00 in costs. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00. To access the full report, click here.	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Dec_24_Charan_Singh_full_DT_report.pdf	DT/9/2022 In the Matter of Charan Singh S/O Bantar Singh an Advocate & Solicitor And In the Matter of the Legal Profession Act 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL President: Mr Tan Puay Boon, SC Advocate & Solicitor: Mr Chong Yee Leong Solicitors for the Law Society: Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Muslim Albakri Ms Rebecca Heng Mr K Anparasan Mr Julian Michael ALBAKRI LLC 1 Keong Saik Road Singapore 089109 Ref: F22/008/1/MIA/RH WhiteFern LLC 9 Raffles Place #18-06 Republic Plaza Singapore 048619 Ref: AK.JM.0230.0001 Dated this 10th day of February 2023 I. INTRODUCTION 1. These proceedings concern a complaint (“Complaint”) by Mr Basant Singh S/O Mokand Singh (“Mr Basant”) and Madam Sockdev Kaur D/O Veer Singh (“Madam Sockdev”) (collectively known as the “Complainants”) against Mr Charan Singh S/O Bantar Singh (“Respondent”). The Respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of 28 years’ standing. At all material times, the Respondent was the sole proprietor of M/s Charan Singh & Co. 2. On 2 June 2022, the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon appointed this Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) to hear and investigate this matter. II. CHARGES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL 3. The complaint arises from the Respondent acting for the Complainants in relation to the sale and purchase of a property located at 88 Sophia Road #04-01, Singapore 228188 (“the Property”) where the Complainants were to be paid $280,000 from the sale proceeds of the Property. The Respondent failed to ensure that the Complainants were to be paid the $280,000 before allowing completion of the sale or to ensure that the Complainants received the amount after completion. The Law Society initially formulated four sets of charges and alternative charges (“Original Charges”) against the Respondent, as annexed to the Law Society’s Statement of Case. 4. The Statement of Case and the Original Charges were filed on 27 May 2022. The Respondent filed the Statement of Defence on 13 July 2022. The parties filed their respective lists of documents and witnesses on 10 and 18 August 2022 respectively. 5. At a Pre-Hearing Conference held on 20 September 2022, Counsel for the Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) informed the DT that the parties were in discussions on a proposal by the Respondent on taking a certain course of action and that the Law Society was seeking certain clarifications from the Respondent. Both parties sought timelines to facilitate the discussions. The DT directed accordingly and fixed the hearing to be held on 15 November 2022. 1 6. On 26 October 2022, the Respondent’s solicitors informed the DT that the Law Society would be proceeding with the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd alternative charges, and would be withdrawing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd main charges, as well as the 4th main and alternative charges. Further, that the Respondent would be pleading guilty to the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd alternative charges. 7. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd alternative charges (“Alternative Charges”) read as follows: ALTERNATIVE FIRST CHARGE (“LS1B”) You, CHARAN SINGH S/O BANTAR SINGH, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court and Sole Proprietor of M/s Charan Singh & Co, had failed to inform and/or take instructions from Mr Basant Singh S/O Mokand Singh (NRIC No. SXXXX850D) and Madam Sockdev Kaur D/O Veer Singh (NRIC No. SXXXX675A), on the completion of the sale and purchase of the property located at 88 Sophia Road, #04-01, Singapore 228188 in March 2018, and are therefore guilty of such misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161). ALTERNATIVE SECOND CHARGE (“LS2B”) You, CHARAN SINGH S/O BANTAR SINGH, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court and Sole Proprietor of M/s Charan Singh & Co, had: (a) failed to advise Mr Basant Singh S/O Mokand Singh (NRIC No. SXXXX850D) and Madam Sockdev Kaur D/O Veer Singh (NRIC No. SXXXX675A) to take the necessary steps to ensure that they receive the sum of S$280,000.00 upon completion of the sale and purchase of the property located at 88 Sophia Road, #04-01, Singapore 228188 in or around March 2018; and 2 (b) provided M/s KL Lim Law Practice with a copy of the signed transfer document and informing (sic) M/s KL Lim Law Practice to proceed unconditionally with the completion of the sale and purchase of the property located at 88 Sophia Road, #04-01, Singapore 228188 on or around 12 March 2018, and are therefore guilty of misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161). ALTERNATIVE THIRD CHARGE (“LS3B”) You, CHARAN SINGH S/O BANTAR SINGH, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court and Sole Proprietor of M/s Charan Singh & Co, had failed, between 12 March 2018 and 28 March 2019, to follow up with M/s KL Lim Law Practice on the sum of S$280,000.00 due to Mr Basant Singh S/O Mokand Singh (NRIC No. SXXXX850D) and Madam Sockdev Kaur D/O Veer Singh (NRIC No. SXXXX675A) from the completion of the sale and purchase of the property located at 88 Sophia Road, #04-01, Singapore 228188, and are therefore guilty of misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161). 8. On 4 November 2022, the Law Society filed the Agreed Statement of Facts (“LS5”). 9. On 10 November 2022, the Respondent filed his Plea in Mitigation (“R1”), Bundle of Documents (“RBD”) and Bundle of Authorities (“RBA”). 10. On 14 November 2022, the Law Society filed its Sentencing Submissions (“LS6”) and Bundle of Authorities (“LSBA”). 3 III. THE HEARING 11. At the hearing held on 15 November 2022, the Alternative Charges were read to the Respondent who pleaded guilty to them. The Respondent also admitted to the facts as stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The DT then heard the mitigation plea from the Respondent’s Counsel and the sentencing submissions from the Law Society’s Counsel, as well as their submissions on costs. The rest of the charges that were not proceeded with were withdrawn by the Law Society. IV. THE AGREED FACTS 12. As set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts: a. The Respondent represented, amongst others, the Complainants in relation to the sale and purchase of the Property. NS Nemura Matsue Contractors Pte Ltd (“Nemura”) had constructed a development in which the Property is located for the Sikh Missionary Society Malaya. Following the completion of the development, Nemura took ownership of the Property and elected to sell the Property in 2001. b. On or around 14 February 2001, Nemura sold the Property to Mr Ram Singh (“Mr Ram”) and Madam Gurbachan Kaur (“Madam Gurbachan”) (collectively “Buyers”). The Complainants were entitled to receive the sum of S$280,000.00 from the proceeds of the sale in the following manner: i. The buyers were to pay S$200,000.00 to the Complainants upon completion of the sale and purchase pursuant to Clause 3 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”); and ii. Nemura authorised the Respondent (by way of a letter dated 28 May 2002) to pay S$80,000.00 to Mr Basant (after deduction of the Respondent’s legal costs for the sale and purchase of the Property) from the sale proceeds of the Property. 4 c. Despite the execution of the SPA in February 2001, the sale and purchase of the Property did not complete until sometime in or around March 2018. d. On 15 November 2003, Mr Ram passed away leaving Madam Gurbachan as the sole buyer in the SPA. e. On or around 2008, Madam Gurbachan entered into a sub-sale agreement with her daughter Madam Dhanwant Kaur D/O Ram Singh (“Madam Dhanwant”) to sell a “half (1/2) share in the [P]roperty as joint owner” 1 to Madam Dhanwant. Madam Gurbachan subsequently passed away in 2009. f. Following these events, the completions of the SPA and the sub-sale were further delayed due to various reasons arising from the passing of the Buyers. g. On 6 March 2018, the Respondent received an email from Madam Dhanwant requesting a copy of the signed transfer document of the Property. h. Between 7 and 12 March 2018, the Respondent corresponded with M/s KL Lim Law Practice (“KL Lim”), Madam Dhanwant’s appointed solicitors, regarding the signed transfer document of the Property. The Respondent provided KL Lim with the signed transfer document on or around 12 March 2018. i. Following the receipt of the signed transfer document, KL Lim asked the Respondent, by email, to let it know if “there [was] any other outstanding matter” by 13 March 2018 as it was “instructed to lodge the transfer, as the matter has been outstanding since 2008.”2 j. On 12 March 2018, the Respondent replied to KL Lim confirming that there “[was] no outstanding matter ….. and that [KL Lim] may proceed with the completion herein”3 even though he was aware that the sum of S$280,000.00 was due to the Complainants. emphasis in italics in original Agreed Statement of Facts. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 5 1 2 k. During this whole period in March 2018, the Respondent continued to represent the Complainants. l. Despite that, at no point in time did the Respondent inform the Complainants about, or take instructions from them, on the completion of the sale and purchase of the Property. The Respondent did not follow up or enquire about the S$280,000.00 until 28 March 2019, when the Complainants, who after having independently found out about the completion of the sale and purchase, contacted the Respondent to enquire about the sum of S$280,000.00 which they had yet to receive. m. Thereafter the Respondent tried, by sending an email to KL Lim, to follow up and recover the S$280,000.00 on various dates but received no response from KL Lim. n. V. To date, the Complainants have not received the S$280,000.00 that was due to them. THE MITIGATION, SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL 13. The Respondent’s Counsel urged the DT to consider the following mitigating factors and to reprimand the Respondent instead of imposing a penalty: a. The Respondent was remorseful and has pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity. b. The Respondent had relied on KL Lim as a fellow solicitor, thinking that KL Lim would update the Respondent as to when the completion would take place. The Respondent’s Counsel clarified that this point was not meant to qualify the guilty plea in any manner but was raised as a matter of background to the Respondent’s failure to safeguard the Complainants’ interest. c. The Respondent had handled the Complainant’s matter in a manner “he best thought fit at the time” and was not motivated by malice or personal interest at any time and there was no dishonesty involved. 6 d. The Respondent had handled the matter as a way to give back to the Sikh Missionary Society Malaya and the Respondent did not charge the Complainants any fees. When queried, the Respondent’s Counsel clarified that the Respondent was supposed to deduct his fees from the S$280,000.00 but since he had failed to collect the S$280,000.00, he did not charge any fees. e. The three charges that were proceeded with were closely connected and arose out of the same transaction. f. 14. The Respondent has an unblemished record and no antecedents. The Alternative Charges were framed around section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”), which provides as follows: Power to strike off roll, etc. 83.—(1) All advocates and solicitors are subject to the control of the Supreme Court and shall be liable on due cause shown — (a) to be struck off the roll; (b) to be suspended from practice for a period not exceeding 5 years; (c) to pay a penalty of not more than $100,000; (d) to be censured; or (e) to suffer the punishment referred to in paragraph (c) in addition to the punishment referred to in paragraph (b) or (d). “(2) Subject to subsection (7), such due cause may be shown by proof that an advocate and solicitor — ….. 7 (h) has been guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession;” ….. 15. The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that in the absence of any element of dishonesty, wilfulness or motivation of personal interest, the Respondent’s acts of misconduct would not constitute cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action to be referred to the Court of 3 Judges under section 93(1)(c) of the LPA. 16. Further, the Respondent’s Counsel urged that a reprimand would be sufficient and was an appropriate sentence on the basis of the following cases: a. Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Kan Kiang Roy [2017] SGDT 7 (“Roy Yeo”); and b. Law Society of Singapore v Gurdaib Singh s/o Pala Singh [2010] SGDT 6 (“Gurdaib Singh”). 17. The Law Society’s Counsel agreed with the Respondent’s Counsel that the Respondent’s acts of misconduct did not constitute cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action to be referred to the Court of 3 Judges as there was an absence of dishonesty, fraud or other serious acts. However, he submitted that the appropriate sanction was a penalty as the Respondent had acted negligently and without the level of diligence and care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor. 18. The Law Society’s Counsel also submitted that the Respondent had displayed a high degree of gross negligence in view of the following factors: a. The Respondent failed in his only duty to the Complainants, which was to ensure that they received the S$280,000.00 due to them, by failing to update or inform the Complainants of the developments in the matter when contacted by KL Lim in early 2018, after a long delay of close to 18 years, and even proceeded to inform KL Lim to proceed unconditionally; b. The extended nature of the transaction in question and the inordinate delay in the completion of the SPA, due to various matters that concerned the other parties to 8 the transaction but not the Complainants, had warranted a greater level of diligence and competence on the Respondent’s part; c. The Respondent’s distinct lack of care was further reflected by his failure to follow up with KL Lim for more than a year, and he only did so after being prompted by Mr Basant in March 2019; d. The potential loss to the Complainants was not insignificant and the prejudice was further exacerbated by the long delay of close to 18 years that the Complainants had waited; e. The Respondent is a senior advocate and solicitor of 28 years standing and his acts of misconduct would result in a greater level of damage to the integrity of and trust in the legal profession; and f. The Respondent has not apologised to the Complainants, which was a relevant factor to be taken into account. 19. The Law Society’s Counsel relied on three case precedents in support of its submission for a penalty to be imposed: a. The Law Society of Singapore v Ong Lian-Yi Gregory [2022] SGDT 15 (“Gregory Ong”) b. The Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat Paglar [2019] SGDT 11 (“Constance Margreat”); and c. The Law Society of Singapore v Sham Chee Keat [2018] SGDT 5 (“Sham Chee Keat”). 20. After the hearing, the DT came across the recent reported decision of the Court of 3 Judges, Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112 (“Samuel Seow”), and on 3 January 2023 invited parties to address the DT on its relevance to the nature of the sanction to be imposed, and on the quantum of any penalty that may be determined. The submissions of parties tendered on 10 January 2023 may be summarised as follows. 9 21. The Law Society’s Counsel submitted that Samuel Seow was not directly relevant to the present case, as it was concerned with the application for a sanction under section 83(1) of the LPA following a determination by a disciplinary tribunal that there was cause of sufficient concern while this DT was concerned with whether cause of sufficient gravity is made out. Although both cases satisfied the elements of misconduct under s 83(2)(h), the conduct of the respondent in Samuel Seow involved a pattern of acts of verbal and physical abuse, aggression and extreme threats, a number of which formed the basis of separate criminal charges under the Penal Code 1871. Present in Samuel Seow as well were aggravating factors absent from the instant case, viz, the respondent being in a position of authority over the victims; the misconduct appearing to be part of a broad pattern of conduct; and the lack of remorse. In Samuel Seow too, the Court of 3 Judges was considering when striking out was appropriate in cases not involving dishonesty, and held that the misconduct must attest to character defects rendering the solicitor unfit to be a member of the legal profession; or it has caused grave dishonour to the standing of the legal profession. The Law Society’s counsel submitted that the conduct of the Respondent has not reached that threshold to warrant striking out, and that a financial penalty remained the appropriate sanction in the present case. 22. The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that Samuel Seow was not applicable to the present case. It was concerned with whether a striking-off order was warranted in cases of misconduct not involving dishonesty or conflicts of interest. There the solicitor was involved in grave misconduct of several clear incidents of abusive or vulgar language and the use of physical force. While he claimed to be remorseful, he initially downplayed his misconduct and misstated the position to both the Law Society and the media. The facts of the present case were far removed from that in Samuel Seow, with no instances of the misconduct which were present in that case. The Respondent’s conduct did not fall below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, but was that of lapses in the way he communicated with the Complainants and the manner in which he handed over the transfer document to KL Lim. The Respondent has been frank and forthcoming with all the relevant facts and documents at all times, and took a certain course at an early opportunity. His conduct at all times was neither malicious nor motivated by personal interest or dishonesty, and he had conducted himself with utmost 10 honesty, integrity and probity. Counsel for the Respondent maintained that a reprimand would be a fair and appropriate sanction in all the circumstances of this case. 23. Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts, and submissions of both Counsel as well as the case authorities, the DT agrees and accepts that the Respondent’s acts of misconduct did not constitute cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action to exist under section 83 of the LPA, as required under section 93(1)(c) of the same Act, even though striking-off may be made in cases of misconduct not involving dishonesty or conflicts of interest. 24. In relation to the appropriate sanction to be imposed on the Respondent, the DT is of the view that the cases relied on by the Respondent in support of the imposition of a reprimand had extenuating circumstances that were absent in the present case: a. In Roy Yeo, the disciplinary tribunal determined that the respondent should be reprimanded for being guilty of two charges for failing to inform his client of directions made in two pre-trial conferences at the High Court, and one charge of misleading the complainant that he was still acting for his client, her father, when he had already discharged himself from doing so. However, the DT notes that the disciplinary tribunal in that case accepted the submissions of both the counsel for the Law Society and the respondent that, for the first two charges, the failure was more an error of judgement as the respondent had tried earlier to contact his client but failed and did not consider whether there were other viable means of communicating with his client without compromising confidentiality. As for the third charge, the disciplinary tribunal accepted that there was no intention by the respondent to mislead the complainant, and that his conduct did not amount to taking an unfair advantage of the complainant, since he did not gain any sort of benefit at all. He was not being dishonest with the complainant but was trying to skirt around the issues that she was concerned with. b. In Gurdaib Singh, the respondent pleaded guilty to two charges - for failing to respond or reply in writing to a legitimate request by a fellow advocate and solicitor, and for failing to keep the complainant reasonably informed of the progress of the sale of the matrimonial property. The disciplinary tribunal determined that a 11 reprimand was sufficient as his breaches were in the nature of unfortunate lapses and shoddy behaviour. It noted that no loss or financial risk was caused as what the respondent was accused of was for not informing the complainant that she had no claim to the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property, which comprised entirely the Central Provident Fund savings of the complainant’s husband, and thus, she would not be receiving any share of the net proceeds of sale. 25. On the other hand, the cases relied on by the Law Society appeared to be more in line with the facts of the present case: a. In Gregory Ong, the respondent who had claimed trial was found guilty of two charges - for failing to make the necessary applications within the prescribed time to set aside a statutory demand, and for failing to keep the complainant reasonably informed of the same. As a result, the complainant was adjudged a bankrupt. The disciplinary tribunal determined that the respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$5,000.00 even though it found that the respondent did not benefit personally, had no antecedent and was not dishonest. The disciplinary tribunal found that the respondent displayed a total lack of care in failing to apply to set aside the statutory demand and/or for an extension of time to make the application. This was despite knowing the consequences that would follow if he failed to do so, and the regular requests made by the complainant for an update. b. In Constance Margreat, the respondent had pleaded guilty to four charges of failing to provide updates on the clients’ claims for damage to their vehicles. The disciplinary tribunal determined that the respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00 on the respondent on the basis of lapses in her management of the clients’ files. c. In Sham Chee Keat, the respondent who had claimed trial was found guilty of one charge of failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence by including or causing to be included statements of fact, which the respondent ought to have known to be inaccurate and false, in an affidavit filed by his client in court. The disciplinary tribunal determined that the respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$5,000.00 on the respondent for acting carelessly in not checking his notes and documents before allowing his client to depose an inaccurate affidavit. 12 26. In the present case, the Respondent has displayed a total lack of care in failing to perform the one and only task that the Complainants had reposed on him i.e. to ensure that they received the S$280,000.00 due to them from the proceeds of the sale of the Property upon completion. Indeed, it appears that the Respondent had completely forgotten about his duty until he was reminded of it a year later. 27. Further, although the Respondent submitted that the Complainants continue to have a cause of action to recover S$280,000.00 and may not therefore suffer any loss, it was not disputed that the Complainants have not recovered the S$280,000.00 and will continue to suffer prejudice in not having recovered the sum. The Complainants will still have to commence legal proceedings to recover the S$280,000.00 and, until the claim is successfully prosecuted and the money is received, recovery is not a given. In this regard, the DT notes that the Respondent has pointed to the involvement of KL Lim, another solicitor, in the completion of the sale and purchase of the Property, and what he had expected the latter to have done during the process. The recovery of the S$280,000.00 by the Complainants may therefore not be a straightforward one. 28. On the other hand, the DT does not place much weight on the Law Society’s submission in relation to the lack of apology by the Respondent as the Respondent may not be at liberty to provide an express apology given the restrictions that may be imposed on him by his professional indemnity insurance policy. 29. The DT does recognise that the Respondent has accepted his responsibility by pleading guilty to the Alternative Charges that were proceeded with at a relatively early stage of these disciplinary proceedings and his acts of misconduct were not motivated by personal interest. 30. In view of these factors, as well as having read the Plea in Mitigation, the Law Society’s Sentencing Submissions and parties’ further submissions, the DT does not think that a reprimand would suffice but finds that a penalty would be more appropriate. 31. Based on the three cases cited, as well as after having considered the decision of the Court of 3 Judges in Samuel Seow, Counsel for the Law Society submitted that a global 13 penalty in the range between S$4,000.00 to S$5,000.00 would be appropriate. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that it should be no more than S$2,000.00 instead. 32. Unlike the respondents in Gregory Ong and Sham Chee Keat who had claimed trial, the Respondent had pleaded guilty. As for the respondent in Constance Margreat, she had faced 19 charges, with accompanying alternative charges, but only four were proceeded with. The charges were also all based on different traffic accident claims that she was handling for the vehicle owners. The charges were also under section 83(2)(b) of the LPA, which deals with misconduct of a more serious nature. The four sets of charges that the Respondent faced, however, all stemmed from the one transaction that concerned the sale and purchase of the Property. Moreover, they were under section 83(2)(h) instead. Notwithstanding these, the DT notes that the Complainants, having waited for 18 years to receive the amount of S$280,000.00, which is a substantial sum, even though the delay could not be attributed to the Respondent, would have to wait even longer to recover the sum. This further wait will not be necessary if the Respondent had simply exercised the level of diligence and care that was expected of him as a senior member of the profession. In the circumstances, the DT is of the view that a global sum of S$4,000.00 would be the appropriate penalty for this case. 33. In summary, the Respondent pleaded guilty to the Alternative Charges and admitted to the Agreed Statement of Facts. The DT finds the Alternative Charges to be made out. Pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the LPA, the DT determines that, while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the LPA, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$4,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. VI. COSTS 34. In relation to costs, the Respondent indicated his intention to take a certain course of action relatively early, after the submissions of the Statement of Defence but before the filing of witness statements and exchange of documents. The hearing took about an hour. In the circumstances, while the Counsel for the Law Society submitted that costs should be fixed at not less than S$3,000.00 having regard to the fairly significant amount of work done, the DT orders, pursuant to section 93(2) of the LPA, that the Respondent 14 pays the Law Society costs in the amount of S$2,500.00. This amount is at the top of the range of costs submitted by Counsel for the Respondent and is commensurate with the costs of S$2,500.00 ordered in Gregory Ong despite the respondent there having claimed trial to the charges. Dated this 10th day of February 2023 Mr Tan Puay Boon, SC President Mr Chong Yee Leong Member 15	2024-12-11T02:00:15+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2024/	In the Matter of Charan Singh s/o Bantar Singh (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2024/	1134

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in lss_dt_reports_version