In this article, the amendments made by the recently passed Legal Profession (Amendment) Act (S35/2001), that came into force on 1 November 2001, are discussed in brief in so far as it relates to amendments to Part VII of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) ('the Act') that concerns disciplinary proceedings.
A Review Process for All Complaints Received by
the Law Society
In January 2001, the Court of Appeal, in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law
Society of Singapore [2001] 2 SLR 145, held that all complaints relating to an
advocate and solicitor must be referred to an Inquiry Committee ('IC'). It was
for the IC to decide if the complaint was frivolous or lacked substance and
should not be inquired into without hearing the solicitor.
The amendment Act now provides for a review process of all complaints received.
When Council receives a complaint or information touching upon the conduct of a lawyer it will still refer it to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel ('IP').
However, the Chairman of the IP will now constitute what is termed as a Review Committee to look into the complaint or information.
This Review Committee will consist of the Chairman of the IP or a member of the IP and a legal officer of not less than ten years' experience.
The function of the Review Committee is to review every complaint or information with a view to determining whether it should be dismissed outright or referred to the Chairman of the IP to constitute an IC for an inquiry under the Act.
The basis upon which the Review Committee can dismiss a complaint outright is that the complaint or information is 'frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance'.
The Council must accept the unanimous view of the Review Committee to dismiss a complaint within seven days of receiving that direction and the report of the Review Committee.
The Council then must inform the complainant and the solicitor of the dismissal and furnish the complainant the reasons of the Review Committee to dismiss the complaint in writing.
This review process would mean that a lawyer would not have to appear before an IC unless the Review Committee is of the view that the complaint or information received is found to disclose some information that requires an inquiry.
However, it is worthy to note that in conducting the review process, the Review Committee may require the complainant or the solicitor concerned to 'answer any inquiry or furnish any record' that may be relevant to help it determine if the complaint lacks substance or is frivolous.
Given the expanded role of the members of the IP, namely to sit on Review Committees and ICs, the amendment Act removes the restriction of a maximum number of 40 solicitors the Chief Justice may appoint to the IP.
The Chief Justice may also now appoint any number of lay persons to the IP, thus giving the Chairman of the IP a larger pool of lay persons from which he may make appointments to serve on an IC.
Finally, under this part of the amendment, it is important to note that a criminal sanction has been provided for if any person makes a complaint to the Society which he knows to be false in any material particular. He shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
New Power of Sanction of the Disciplinary
Committee, the Council's Power to Order a Penalty and the Publication of All
Findings and Determinations of Disciplinary Committees
The amendment Act provides for the Disciplinary Committee ('DC') to also have
the power to recommend that the Council impose a financial penalty not exceeding
$10,000 against a solicitor apart from their existing power to order the Council
to reprimand a solicitor for his misconduct.
Prior to the amendment, the Council only had the power to order a penalty not exceeding $5,000 on a member for misconduct.
This now means in cases where an IC is of the view that the appropriate penalty should be a substantial financial penalty exceeding $5,000, it would make a recommendation for the complaint to be referred to a DC for a formal investigation. It would then be for the DC to determine if a penalty would be the appropriate punishment or if the solicitor should be reprimanded if the complaint against the solicitor is made out.
The amendment Act requires penalties, ordered to be paid by a solicitor, to be paid to the Law Society instead of the Consolidated Fund, and for all such orders of penalty imposed to be gazetted in the Government Gazette. Prior to this, only a penalty exceeding $1,000 and a reprimand by the DC was published in the Government Gazette.
Finally, the Council under the amendment Act must now publish a summary of all the findings and determinations of DCs in either The Singapore Law Gazette magazine or other media.
Other professions and foreign Law Societies do include such publications of disciplinary committee reports in their professional magazine. The Law Society will now publish this information to members in its magazine.