lss_dt_reports_version: 77

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
77 47 2 1190   In the Matter of Seah Choon Huat Johnny (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint lodged against the Respondent by his client (the Complainant) in respect of his conduct as an Advocate and Solicitor, and in relation to his representation of the Complainant in her divorce proceedings. Following the dissolution of the Complainant’s marriage, the Respondent filed a summons to vary the divorce order (the Variation Summons). The Respondent failed to attend the scheduled Case Conference for the Variation Summons. As a result, the Variation Summons never proceeded to any further hearing, and the divorce order was never varied. Thereafter, the Complainant appointed a new set of solicitors (the new solicitors) to take over conduct of the matter from the Respondent’s firm. The new solicitors wrote to the Respondent’s firm seeking an urgent handover of documents in the Respondent’s possession. Despite repeated reminders, the Respondent’s firm failed to handover any documents to the new solicitors, leading to the new solicitors filing an Originating Summons seeking orders for the Respondent to deliver up to the Complainant all information and documents. The following were the main charges held against the Respondent, referenced from section 83(2)(b) of the Act for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty as an advocate and solicitor: First Charge The Respondent failed to act timeously on the Complainant’s instruction to vary the divorce order and had failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed of the progress of the Variation Summons, breaching Rules 5(2)(c), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR). Second Charge The Respondent failed to attend the Case Conference in the Variation Summons without reasonable justification or notice to the Complainant, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(c) and 5 (2)(e) of the PCR. Third Charge The Respondent failed to respond and/or comply with the new solicitors’ repeated requests to take over conduct of the matter, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) and/or 7(2) of the PCR. Findings of the DT The DT found that the First Charge was made out in that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rules 5(2)(c), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) and/or 5(2)(h) of the PCR, and amounted to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Act, and there was cause for sufficient gravity. The DT found that the Second Charge had been made out in that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rules 5(2)(c) and 5(2)(e) of the PCR, and amounted to improper conduct under s 83(2)(b) of the Act, and there was cause for sufficient gravity. The DT was satisfied that the Third Charge was made out, and that the Respondent’s conduct was in breach of Rules 5(2)(e), 5(2)(f) and/or 7(2) of the PCR amounting to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b) of the Act, and there was cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The DT also ordered the Respondent to pay costs to the Law Society fixed at $8,000 plus reasonable disbursements. Court of Three Judges The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of four years commencing immediately after the conclusion of the Respondent’s six-month suspension ordered in C3J/OA 1/2023, and for the Respondent to pay costs and disbursements to the Law Society in the sum of S$20,500. To access the full report, click here.           8ff4edad1a8a3c59d4e309e7795d38ab538d5a13

Links from other tables