Pursuant to s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the findings and determination.
This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal
In the Matter of Leonard Loo Peng Chee, an Advocate and Solicitor
The Law Society had received numerous complaints against the respondent over a period of eight months (between August 2010 and March 2011) including two sets of complaints arising from information referred by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. In view of the unprecedented number of complaints and information referred within a short span of time, the Law Society filed an application under s 27B Legal Profession Act (the “LPA”) for an order that nine matters against the respondent be referred to a Disciplinary Tribunal and an order that the respondent’s practising certificate be suspended.
In total, 21 charges were preferred against the respondent; however the first to seventh charges were deferred to be considered later as the plaintiffs in the subject matter of the first to seventh charges had commenced their own civil suit against the respondent for professional negligence.
As a result, 14 charges were proceeded on against the respondent and were as follows:
8th Charge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or before 1 July 2010, whilst acting as counsel for Zhou Tong, Liu Xiaoying, Zheng Qiaoling, Zheng Jinhua, Lei Meiqin, Zheng Wenqing, Chen Caizhen and Su Qiaoling (“your Clients”) in Magistrate’s Appeal 124-131/2010 heard before the Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah (the “Appeals”), you failed to act in your Clients’ interests and/or acted in breach of your duty to the Court, when you filed the Appeals which were unnecessary and/or manifestly unmeritorious, and/or you were grossly unprepared to argue the Appeals, and you are thereby in breach of rr 12 and/or 47 and/or 54 and/or 55 and/or 60 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap. 161, R1, 2000 Rev Ed).
Particulars
1. You did not advise your Clients on the merits of the Appeals.
2. The grounds in the Petitions of Appeal for all your Clients were essentially identical and/or lacked legal basis.
3. You were ill-prepared for the Appeals.
and that in relation to the facts alleged, you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
9th Charge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or before 27 April 2010, whilst acting as counsel for Tan Toh Tai, Tan Tor Kong, Ting Tau Hua, Tan Tor Nguor (“your Clients”) in Originating Summons 6/2010 heard before the Honourable Judicial Commissioner Quentin Loh (as he then was) (the “Hearing”), you failed to act in your Clients’ interests and/or acted in breach of your duty to the Court, when you failed, neglected and/or refused to prepare for the Hearing and/or otherwise take necessary steps to assist the Court for the Hearing, and you are thereby in breach of rr 12 and/or 47 and/or 54 and/or 55 and/or 60 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap. 161, R1, 2000 Rev Ed).
Particulars
1. You attended the Hearing without the cause papers.
2. You were ill-prepared for the Hearing.
and that in relation to the facts alleged, you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
10thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or before 8 July 2010, whilst acting as counsel for Cheang Robert Frederick t/a CKX Marketing (“your Client”) in Bankruptcy 564/2010 heard before the learned Assistant Registrar Lim Jian Yi (the “Hearing”), you failed to act in your Clients’ interests and/or acted in breach of your duty to the Court, when you did not show up on time for the hearing and/or prejudiced your Clients’ case by failing, neglecting and/or refusing to take necessary steps in the proceedings, and you are thereby in breach of rr 12 and/or 47 and/or 54 and/or 55 and/or 60 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap. 161, R1, 2000 Rev Ed).
Particulars
1. You failed to file a defence for your Client, resulting in default judgment being entered against your Client (the “default judgment”).
2. You arrived late for the Hearing on 8 July 2010, which was in respect of a bankruptcy application to enforce the default judgment. Instead, you asked your Client to attend the hearing in your absence.
3. You did not make a timely application to set aside the default judgment and/or did not apply for an extension of time to set aside the default judgment.
4. Your Client was made a bankrupt.
and that in relation to the facts alleged, you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
11thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that between the period from 3 September 2008 to 8 June 2010, whilst acting as counsel for various parties involved in actions before the Court, you failed to act in your Clients’ interests and/or acted in breach of your duty to the Court, when you persistently failed, neglected and/or refused to attend Court hearings and/or attend Court hearings on time and/or make arrangements for proper representation at Court hearings and/or comply with Court directions to explain your non-attendance at Court hearings, and you are thereby in breach of rr 12 and/or 14 and/or 17 and/or 47 and/or 54 and/or 55 and/or 60 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R1, 2000 Rev Ed).
Particulars
See Annex A hereto.
and that in relation to the facts alleged (collectively, or in combination), you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
12th Charge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or about 1 July 2009, whilst acting as counsel for Jahja Hendrata Soeparta and Maria Elma Widawati Warsito (“your Clients”), you failed to act in your Clients’ interests, when you compromised your Clients’ position without seeking instructions from your Clients and/or their representative, and you are thereby in breach of rr 12 and/or 21 and/or 54 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R1, 2000 Rev Ed).
Particulars
1. By a “without prejudice” letter dated 1 July 2009 (the “Letter”), you made a settlement proposal to opposing counsel (the “Settlement Proposal”) purportedly on your Clients’ behalf.
2. You did not obtain your Clients’ instructions, consent and/or approval on the Settlement Proposal and/or the Letter.
and that in relation to the facts alleged, you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively, you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
13th Charge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or about 7 March 2011, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 7(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you drew a cheque for $6,000 from the client account of the Firm which was not properly required for payment to or on behalf of the client, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
14th Charge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or about 7 March 2011, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 8(5) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you drew a cheque for $6,000.00 from the client account of the Firm without first obtaining the signature of a co-signatory of the Firm, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
15thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that during or about the period between 9 November 2010 to 18 February 2011, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you failed, neglected and/or refused to ensure that the client account of the Firm was not overdrawn and in a deficit balance, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
16thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on or about 7 March 2011, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 7(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you have as at 26 August 2011 failed, neglected and/or refused to comply with directions by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore (the “Council”) for the production of documents/information for the inspection of the Council, namely:
1. books of accounts relating to the Firm’s office accounts (inclusive of cash books, bank statements, bill of costs, bank deposit slips, payment vouchers, official receipts, office ledger and/or bank passbooks) other than those that you have already provided;
2. mandate furnished to the banking institution hosting the Firm’s client account,
3. bank reconciliation/ledger/bank statements of the Firm’s client account for May 2008; and/or
4. the name of signatories to the Firm’s client account and/or specimen signatures of the said signatories.
and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
17thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that during or about the period between 9 November 2010 to 18 February 2011, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 11(4) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you failed, neglected and/or refused to ensure that that the balance of your clients’ cash books (or clients’ column of your cash book) were reconciled with your clients’ bank statements on a monthly basis, thereby failing, neglecting and/or refusing to rectify the overdrawn amount of S$13,500.00 in your client’s ledger for this period, and you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively, you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
18thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on 17 occasions during or about the period between 1 January 2008 to 1 December 2010, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you failed, neglected and/or refused to ensure that the client account of the Firm was not overdrawn and in a deficit balance.
Particulars
See Annex B hereto.
and that in relation to the facts alleged (collectively, or in combination), you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
19thCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on 16 occasions during or about the period between 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 11(4) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you failed, neglected and/or refused to ensure that that the balance of your clients’ cash books (or clients’ column of your cash book) were reconciled with your clients’ bank statements on a monthly basis.
Particulars
See Annex B hereto.
and that in relation to the facts alleged (collectively, or in combination), you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
20th Charge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that during or about the period between 1 January 2006 to 1 June 2010, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 11(4) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you failed, neglected and/or refused to ensure that that the balance of your clients’ cash books (or clients’ column of your cash book) were reconciled with your clients’ bank statements on a monthly basis, thereby failing, neglecting and/or refusing to rectify an outstanding amount of $25,000 and you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
21stCharge
You, Leonard Loo Peng Chee, are charged that on 17 occasions during or about the period of June 2009 to December 2009, as Partner of the firm of Leonard Loo LLP (the “Firm”), in contravention of r 7(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, s 72(1) 1999 Rev Ed), you failed, neglected and/or refused to ensure that the client account of the Firm was not overdrawn and in a deficit balance to meet payment of an outstanding cheque for the sum of S$5.35 and you are guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, or alternatively, you are guilty of a contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of s 83(2)(j) of the Legal Profession Act.
Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal
The respondent pleaded guilty to each of the 13th to 21st charges which related to the respondent’s breaches of various Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (the “SAR”). The respondent pleaded not guilty to the remaining charges.
For the 13th to 21st charges, the Disciplinary Tribunal found that the fact that the respondent’s breaches did not result in any loss to clients or involved a small amount did not mitigate or lessen the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct as the respondent’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he had committed more than 30 breaches of the SAR over a period of five years. The fact that the breaches were caused by some of the respondent’s staff due to a “clerical slip” or administrative errors did not absolve the respondent from the consequences of the said breaches of the SAR.
The respondent was found guilty on all charges except the 10th charge, where the Disciplinary Tribunal found that the charge had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, the Disciplinary Tribunal found and determined under s 93(1) of the LPA that cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under s 83 of the LPA against the respondent, in respect of all the proceeded charges except the 10th.
Decision of Council
Council accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal and pursuant to s 94 of the LPA, applied under s 98 of the LPA for “show cause” proceedings against the respondent.
The Court of Three Judges
The Court of Three Judges affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal and remarked that the respondent was totally unfit to practice. The Court ordered that the respondent be struck off the rolls and ordered that costs be agreed or taxed.
In the Matter of Tan Tiong Hian Alias Raymond Tan, an Advocate and Solicitor
The respondent was at all material times practising as a sole proprietor in the name of Messrs T.H. Tan Raymond & Co (the “Firm”). The complaint arose when the Law Society was informed by the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”) that the respondent was under investigation for possible misappropriation of monies from the Firm’s client account. The Council of the Law Society resolved to carry out an inspection under r 12 of the Legal Professional (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules on the client account of the Firm.
The respondent failed on two occasions to deliver the accounting documents and related documents for the inspection by the given dateline. The Council of Law Society resolved pursuant to s 74 and para 1(c) of the First Schedule of the Legal Profession Act to intervene in the client account of the Firm.
Following from the intervention into the client account of the Firm, the following charges were brought against the respondent:
First Charge
You, Tan Tiong Hian Raymond, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that sometime in or about 2010, whilst practising under the name and style of Messrs T.H. Tan Raymond & Co (the “Firm”), you were in breach of s 72 of the Legal Profession Act read with r 7(1)(a) and 8(1) of the Solicitors Account Rules (the “SAR”), to wit, you:
Made unauthorised withdrawals of monies amounting to $412,690.85 from your Client Account contrary to r 7(1)(a) and 8(1) of the SAR, and have thereby committed acts of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act. Second Charge
You, Tan Tiong Hian Raymond, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that sometime in or about 2010, whilst practising under the name and style of Messrs T.H. Tan Raymond & Co (the “Firm”), you were in breach of s 72 of the Legal Profession Act read with r 11 of the Solicitors Account Rules (the “SAR”), to wit, you:
Failed to keep such cash books, ledgers and journals or any other books and accounts and failed to record or caused to be recorded in any ledger or other books of accounts required to be maintained of all dealings with respect to the Clients of the Firm as required under rr 11(1) and (2) of the SAR, and have thereby committed acts of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
Third Charge
You, Tan Tiong Hian Raymond, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that sometime in November and December 2010, whilst practising under the name and style of Messrs T.H. Tan Raymond & Co (the “Firm”), you were found to be in breach of s 72 of the Legal Profession Act read with r 12(3) of the Solicitors Account Rules (the “SAR”), to wit, you:
Failed to produce books of accounts namely client ledger, bank statements, trial balances and journals for the period 1st January 2010 to 30th June 2010 at the time and place fixed by the Council of the Law Society, and have thereby committed acts of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
Fourth Charge
You, Tan Tiong Hian Raymond, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court are charged that in 2010, whilst practising under the name and style of Messrs T.H. Tan Raymond & Co (the “Firm”), you were in breach of s 72 of the Legal Profession Act read with r 11(4) of the Solicitors Account Rules (the “SAR”), to wit, you:
Failed to cause the balance of your Clients’ cashbooks to be reconciled with your Clients’ bank statements and keep statement(s) showing the reconciliation required under r 11(4) of the SAR, and have thereby committed acts of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as an advocate and solicitor contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal
On the First Charge, given that the Firm’s client account could only be operated by the respondent and there was no evidence to show that the second signatory played any role in the withdrawal, the Disciplinary Tribunal found that there was uncontroverted evidence that there was a shortfall in the client account of Firm amounting to $412,690.85 in 2010.
At the end of the proceedings, the Tribunal found the respondent guilty of all four charges and foundunder s 93(1) of the Legal Profession Act (the “Act”) that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists against the respondent. Pursuant to s 82(A)(13) of the Act, the respondent was also ordered to pay costs of $5,000.
Decision of Council
Council accepted the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal and pursuant to s 94 of the Act, applied under s 98 of the said Act for show cause proceedings against the respondent.
The Court of Three Judges
The Court of Three Judges affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal and ordered that the respondent be struck off the rolls.