MOHD SADIQUE BIN IBRAHIM MARICAN v THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE & Anor

Facts

Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican applied in C3J/OA 4/2023 under s 102(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 to be restored to the roll of advocates and solicitors. He had been admitted in 2000 and in 2004 set up a firm with Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin, who as managing partner ran the client and office accounts. In November 2007 Mr Sadique discovered both accounts were overdrawn; his partner absconded the next day, and Mr Sadique reported the matter to the Law Society and the police. A Law Society inspection found that bank reconciliations had stopped after June 2007 and that cash cheques had been issued without supporting documents.

A disciplinary tribunal found charges proved against Mr Sadique for breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules. On 20 January 2011 the Court of Three Judges struck him off. It found he had not misappropriated money and was not dishonest, but his failure to supervise the accounts allowed his partner to commit a massive fraud causing more than 80 clients to lose over $11m. Mr Sadique was made bankrupt in 2010, paid about $1,000 a month for 12 years, and was discharged on 7 February 2022. He recovered from cancer and worked in Dubai in in-house roles and as Head of Arbitration at a private firm. The Law Society and the Attorney-General did not oppose reinstatement but proposed conditions, which he accepted.

Issues

1. Whether an adequate period had passed since Mr Sadique was struck off
2. Whether Mr Sadique had been fully and completely rehabilitated
3. Whether reinstatement would harm the public interest or the reputation of the profession
4. What conditions, if any, should attach to his reinstatement

Holding

The Court of Three Judges (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Steven Chong JCA) allowed the application and reinstated Mr Sadique to the roll on conditions lasting 12 months from his first practising certificate: he may not be a sole proprietor, partner or director of a law practice, may not hold or receive client or trust money or operate or sign on any client or trust account, and must take Law Society courses on ethics and the accounts rules. No order was made as to costs.

Reasoning

The court applied the three requirements in Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore [2013] 1 SLR 719. On time, the more serious the misconduct, the longer the wait; the period of about 12.5 years was sufficient and in line with past successful applications.

On rehabilitation, nothing short of full rehabilitation is expected, judged mainly by conduct after striking off, especially in positions of trust, and by references that do more than praise. Testimonials from lawyers who worked with him in the Middle East attested to his competence and his honesty in handling substantial funds. Several regulatory summonses for tax filing and parking matters, and a police inquiry about a change of address, did not show disrespect for the law; they were minor, mostly long ago, and all withdrawn or not pursued. An adverse remark by a disciplinary tribunal in another case carried no weight, since he was not a party to it.

On the public interest, the court balanced protection against redemption. Because he was struck off for a lack of competence in supervision rather than any defect of character, and more than 12 years had passed, the protective concern was lesser. Still, conditions were needed to reassure future clients. The court adopted the Attorney-General's four conditions, since Mr Sadique's breaches had contributed to the fraud, and found 12 months long enough for him to reintegrate.

From the judgment