THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v ANDREW JOHN HANAM

Facts

Mr Andrew John Hanam, an advocate and solicitor admitted on 21 March 1998, acted from 25 November 2016 for P&P Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd in a dispute with Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd over unpaid invoices under two subcontracts for the Marina Bay MRT station. What was essentially a straightforward debt claim ran close to three years across three suits, HC/S 1255/2016, DC/DC 1043/2018 and HC/S 1167/2017, with several adverse costs orders against P&P along the way. He kept no attendance notes or timesheets of his meetings with P&P's director, Mr Krishnamoorthy Pugazendhi.

Mr Pugazendhi complained to the Law Society on 11 March 2020. A disciplinary tribunal found two charges proved on 14 counts: failing to evaluate with the client whether steps justified their cost and risk and whether alternative dispute resolution should be used (r 17(2)(e) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015), and failing to advise on the legal issues so the client could make informed decisions (r 17(2)(f)). It dismissed two other charges. The Law Society applied in Originating Application No 5 of 2022 for sanction under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, seeking a suspension of three and a half to four and a half years. Mr Hanam contested every finding and sought a fine of $15,000.

Issues

1. Whether the charges were irregular or too vague to allow a proper defence
2. Whether the tribunal was right to give little weight to the solicitor's uncorroborated evidence of oral advice
3. Whether the counts were proved beyond reasonable doubt and amounted to due cause for sanction
4. What sanction was appropriate for the proven misconduct

Holding

The Court of Three Judges (Tay Yong Kwang JCA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA and Andrew Phang Boon Leong SJ) set aside six of the 14 counts but upheld the rest, found due cause shown on both charges and allowed the application. Mr Hanam was suspended from practice for 9 months under s 83(1)(b), starting four weeks after judgment, and ordered to pay the Law Society $32,000 in costs.

Reasoning

Adding the words "properly and periodically" merely spelt out what the rules already require, since risk-benefit evaluation must be done at each stage. The charges gave the period, the suits, the failings and the rules breached, and his defence showed he understood them.

The tribunal disbelieved him not because his evidence came late but because, despite claiming close to 100 meetings, he had no notes or other records to show he advised orally. His explanation that he sent draft court papers afterwards showed only that he took instructions, not that he gave reasoned advice.

Six counts fell away for reasonable doubt or error: the client's evidence on two unauthorised filings was equivocal; his advice on one settlement offer was reasonable; suing before all invoices were due caused no harm because the later invoices could not yet be verified; and there was no agreed set-off making it wise to wait for the first suit's outcome. Eight counts stood: proposing costs to opponents without instructions; not raising statutory construction adjudication, a quicker and cheaper route suited to a cash-strapped subcontractor, or mediation in the third suit; giving no advice on two applications and on an early settlement offer he never forwarded; wrongly advising that documents cited in P&P's own pleadings could be withheld as irrelevant; and steering the client into a fresh suit without mentioning the option of waiting. A client's supposed familiarity with such matters did not excuse the duty to advise.

Negligence alone is not always due cause, but these sustained failures over close to three years showed a cavalier disregard for the rules and caused extra litigation and costs. The Law Society's precedents involved dishonesty or far graver harm, and six counts had gone. Weighing his 18 years' standing, his lack of remorse and serious allegations against the client, and the prejudice to P&P, against his clean record and lack of intent to harm, a 9-month suspension was appropriate.

From the judgment