I am honoured to be here this evening to receive the C C Tan Award. I never expected it. I was surprised that I was nominated for the Award. Although I served for many years as a Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee and I am still serving as a member of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules Committee, I am not on the profession’s radar screen. I seldom go to Court. What little Court work I did was years ago.

But I still hark back to the old times with fond memories.

The profession was small then and practice was at a more gentle pace. We knew one another in the profession by name and there was tremendous camaraderie among members. You could always phone up a senior member of the Bar for advice and advice would be freely given.

While we would fight tooth and nail in Court, pleading our clients’ case, we would go for a drink together as friends after the case. We addressed the High Court Judges as “My Lords” or “Your Lordships”. We never pulled wool over the Judges’ eye. Where there was an authority against our case, we would still quote it, but distinguished it, and tried to convince the Judge that it should not apply to our case. There was trust between Bench and Bar. A statement made from the Bar would be accepted by the Court. Judges would help the young lawyers along so long as justice was not compromised.

There was respect between Bench and Bar. Lawyers were never rude to Judges and politeness was reciprocated.

I enjoyed my years sitting as a Chairman on the Disciplinary Committee. There was only one occasion when I was nearly summoned to appear before a Judge in the High Court to justify my Committee’s decision. Under an old provision in the Legal Profession Act, section 97, when a party was dissatisfied with the Disciplinary Committee’s decision, he could appeal to the High Court. And the Judge hearing the appeal was required to hear the Disciplinary Committee. I thought that it was odd that the Disciplinary Committee should be required to appear before the Judge to justify its decision. I wrote to the Law Society pointing out that the Committee, after writing its decision, was like Omar Qhayyam’s proverbial Moving Finger, which –

“…having Writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it”.

I am glad section 97 is now amended and the Disciplinary Committee is now no longer required to appear before the Judge to justify its decision in the event any party is dissatisfied with its decision.

During my time, there were at least seven professional people involved in a Disciplinary Committee hearing. Scheduling a hearing date was no easy task. And it was not made easier by the High Court which sometimes exercised its precedence over the Disciplinary Committee on hearing dates. A scheduled hearing of the Disciplinary Committee would have to be postponed when one of its lawyers was required to appear in a High Court case.

The panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal (as it is now called) has now been reduced to two. But even with the reduction, a disciplinary hearing still involves at least five lawyers. I think proceedings of the Disciplinary Tribunal could be more expeditiously conducted if the High Court were to show accommodation to the Disciplinary Tribunal on hearing dates. After all, in every disciplinary hearing, a lawyer’s reputation (and maybe even his livelihood) is at stake.

A pupil of mine was called to the Bar recently. I was surprised that he did not need me to sign his Certificate of Diligence. I queried him.

He showed me Form D(3) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, note (a) of which clearly states :

“State name and appointment of either of the 2 persons making the certificate (each of whom must be a partner or director of the Singapore Law practice)”.

I am not a partner of David Lim & Partners LLP. I am the Consultant and I am in active practice. There is nothing in the Rules that prohibits a Consultant from being a supervising solicitor. A Consultant can be a supervising solicitor but he cannot sign the Certificate of Diligence for his practice trainee. This seemed odd to me. Maybe the Institute of Legal Education could look into this little anomaly.

I was sorry to see some of the old law firms disappear over time because there was no succession planning. But I am happy to see my old firm Rodyk & Davidson doing well, vibrant and thriving. I am glad that the old partners of Rodyk & Davidson had the wisdom to merge with a dynamic firm so as to remain in the forefront of the profession.

I have enjoyed practice in the past 48 years. My old partners were kind and understanding. So are my present partners. Indeed they are here this evening to give me support.

The receipt of tonight’s Award topped my long career in Law. I am honoured and humbled. And I am grateful.

Thank you.


Special Award, Volunteer of the Year, Contributor of the Year and Pro Bono Ambassador of the Year 

Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC (right), receiving the award for Rodyk & Davidson LLP

Mr N. Sreenivasan (right), receiving the award for Straits Law Practice LLC


 Mr Patrick Tan (right) of Patrick Tan LLC
 

Special Award

Council would like to announce the presentation of a Law Society Special Award.

The recipient of this award made a $100,000 donation in her individual capacity to the Law Society’s Pro Bono Services Office. She is Ms Helen Tan Cheng Hoon.

Volunteer of the Year Award

The Volunteer of the Year award is an annual award given to a law practice that has made a significant non-monetary contribution to the Law Society’s work and activities for the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011.

Large-sized Law Practice

This year’s recipient of the Volunteer of the Year award for large-sized law practices is Rodyk & Davidson LLP.

Medium-sized Law Practice

The recipient of the Volunteer of the Year award in 2011 for medium-sized law practices is Straits Law Practice LLC.

Small-sized Law Practice

The recipient of the Volunteer of the Year award in 2011 for small-sized law practices is Patrick Tan LLC.

Sole Practitioner Law Practice

This year’s recipient of the Volunteer of the Year award for sole-practitioners is T L Yap & Associates.

Contributor of the Year Award

The Contributor of the Year award is an annual award given to a law practice that has provided generous financial support to the activities of the Law Society by way of sponsorship or donation, for the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011.

This year, the recipient of this category of the award is Harry Elias Partnership LLP.

Pro Bono Ambassador of the Year Award

The Pro Bono Ambassador of the Year award is an annual award given to an individual who has an established track record of providing pro bono services for a period of five or more years.

The award is given to an individual who has shared and promoted the pro bono spirit and has encouraged lawyers to play a role in facilitating access to justice and in giving back to the community. The recipient of the Pro Bono Ambassador Award for 2011 is Ms Malathi Das.

We thank Mr Heinz Puth, Managing Director of Julius Baer, for presenting the awards.


Mr Yap Teong Liang (right) of T L Yap & Associates


Mr Philip Fong (right) receiving the award for Harry Elias Partnership LLP


Ms Malathi Das, receiving her award for Pro Bono Ambassador of the Year


Plaque of Appreciation


During the course of the year, the Law Society has been very privileged to have the generous support of members in carrying out the Society’s work. They have made significant contributions to the Society’s activities and the Society is very grateful for their support.

The awards were presented by Vice President Mr Rajan Menon (standing left in the photos below).

1.    Mr Sant Singh, SC

Sant Singh has been selflessly helping others acquire the skills and knowledge required in good advocacy. He has also been actively involved in advocacy training since the inception of the programme more than 15 years ago and has played a key role in developing teaching methods and materials.

2.    Mr Teh Kee Wee Lawrence



Lawrence was the Chairman of the Civil Practice Committee from 2006 to 2010. During his chairmanship, Lawrence made great strides in developing the Committee as a credible channel of communication between the civil litigation Bar and the Courts. Through his untiring efforts, the Committee was extremely active in giving considered feedback to the Courts on many consultations on civil practice issues.

3.    Mr Lim Kheng Huat Jim

Jim has served as the Chairperson of the Information Technology Committee for 15 years. He was heavily involved in the roll-out of the EFS and was Law Society’s representative on the LAWNET Management Committee from 2002 to 2010.

4.    Mr Rajan Chettiar



For those who read the Singapore Law Gazette, you will be familiar with the monthly column “Alter Ego”. Rajan has been contributing to this column every month since 2003. He is also a long-serving member of our Publications Committee.

5.    Mr Pathmanaban Selvadurai

Pathmanaban Selvadurai has been serving as a Claims Panel Advisor to the Professional Indemnity Scheme for the past 20 years. His gentle demeanour and helpfulness to all lawyers concerned has been one of the reasons why the PI scheme has operated so well.

6.    Mr Derrick Wong Ong Eu



The Plaque of Appreciation is given to Derrick Wong in appreciation for his time and service in leading the Conveyancing Practice Committee as the Committee played the integral role of assisting the conveyancing practitioners and staff adapt to the changes brought about by recent developments under the new conveyancing regime.

7.    Mr B Ganeshamoorthy (Posthumous)



B. Ganeshamoorthy had been a member of the Practice Management & PrimeLaw Committee since 1999. He was Vice-Chair of the Practice Management Committee from 2000 to 2003 and Chair from 2004 to 2007. He was a key member of the Committee and contributed his valuable views and insight up to his untimely demise earlier this year. May we invite his widow, Madam Jeyamani Ganeshamoorthy, to receive the award on his behalf.