lss_dt_reports_version_detail (view)
1 row where "timestamp" is on date 2022-06-08
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: _commit_at (date), timestamp (date), _changed_columns (array)
| _commit_at | _commit_hash | _id | _item | _version | _commit | title | content | pdf-link | pdf-content | timestamp | url | unique_id | _item_full_hash | _changed_columns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-12T10:03:15+00:00 | 2297998b69bece5ba5013b5d88c4b20c9b153661 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 961 | In the Matter of Zheng Shengyang Harry (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor | In the Matter of Zheng Shengyang Harry (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose from a complaint lodged by one Lee Kuan Fung (Complainant). The complaint pertained to the Respondent’s conduct in which the Respondent’s law firm, Ark Law Corporation, had issued a letter of demand to the Complainant and one Chua Chim Kang, and the Respondent had caused the said letter of demand to be openly posted on a wall beside the main door of the Complainant’s flat in plain view of the public on 9 October 2020. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a DT presided by Mr Narayanan Sreenivasan SC and Mr Seah Seow Kang Steven as DT member. Charge For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession under Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in which the Respondent had caused a letter of demand, addressed to the Complainant and another, which was prepared for his client, to be openly posted on 9 October 2020 at 7.37pm, on a wall beside the main door of Lee’s flat in plain view of the public without an envelope, when the Respondent knew or ought to have known that there was no necessity or legal basis to do so, in a way which is contrary to the Respondent’s position as a member of an honourable profession in breach of Rule 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR). Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found the Respondent guilty of the Charge. The DT was of the view that the interpretation of the phrase “contrary to the legal practitioner’s position as a member of an honourable profession” in Rule 8(3)(b) of the PCR did not require a finding of culpability akin to fraud or deceit, as it would be inconsistent with the guiding principles in Rule 4 of the PCR and the specific guiding principles in Rule 8(1) of the PCR. Further, the DT, in its analysis of whether the actions of an advocate and solicitor should be viewed objectively or wheth… | https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DT_Report_PDF_Harry_Zheng_Jun2022.pdf | DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DT/17/2021 In the Matter of ZHENG SHENGYANG, HARRY (NRIC No: SXXXX809G) an Advocate & Solicitor And In the Matter (Chapter 161) of the Legal Profession Act REPORT PRESIDENT: MR NARAYANAN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR: MR SEAH SEOW KANG STEVEN MS KOH EN YING MS GLORIA TAN FOR THE LAW SOCIETY MR SARBJIT SINGH CHOPRA MR ROSHAN SINGH CHOPRA FOR THE RESPONENT Dated this 19 day of Jan 2022 SREENIVASAN SC Introduction 1. This Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed on 3 August 2021. The Respondent solicitor is Zheng Shengyang, Harry (NRIC No. SXXXX809G) (the “Respondent’), an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He was called to the Singapore Bar in 2015." 2. The primary facts in this matter are not in dispute. We must commend both counsel for the Law Society and counsel for the Respondent for the focussed, concise and fair manner in which they conducted their respective cases. This has greatly assisted us in dealing with the issues in this case. Background 3. Facts to the Complaint The complainant, Lee Kuan Fung (the “Complainant’), is an individual resident in a Housing Development Board flat at 18 Joo Seng Road, #08- 159, Singapore 360018 (the “Complainant's Flat’). 4. On or about Corporation, 7 October 2020, the Respondent’s law firm, Ark Law issued a letter (the “7 October Letter’) to the Complainant and Chua Chim Kang.° The 7 October Letter contained: (1) the Complainant’s name and address; (2) Chua Chim Kang’s name and address; and 1 Statement of Case at [1] and Defence (Amendment No. 1) at [2] 2 Statement of Case at [2] and Defence (Amendment No. 1) at [3] 3 Statement of Case at [3] and Defence (Amendment No. 1) at [5] 2 (3) information relating to the company known as Homing Holdings Pte Ltd (a company ostensibly incorporated for the purposes of a joint venture Chua between Chim the Kang), Respondent’s and client, the Complainant the dispute between the and Respondent’s client, the Complainan… | 2022-06-08T04:00:09+00:00 | https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2022/ | In the Matter of Zheng Shengyang Harry (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2022/ | fbe13d5c079fd2737c72f0744793e9ef3fe1c55c | [
"unique_id",
"pdf-link",
"title",
"content",
"pdf-content",
"timestamp",
"url"
] |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE VIEW lss_dt_reports_version_detail AS select
commits.commit_at as _commit_at,
commits.hash as _commit_hash,
lss_dt_reports_version.*,
(
select json_group_array(name) from columns
where id in (
select column from lss_dt_reports_changed
where item_version = lss_dt_reports_version._id
)
) as _changed_columns
from lss_dt_reports_version
join commits on commits.id = lss_dt_reports_version._commit;