THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v RAVI S/O MADASAMY

1 Mr Ravi is a lawyer of more than 25 years’ standing. He has a long history of disciplinary proceedings for various incidents of improper conduct. He is currently serving a 5-year suspension which commenced on 21 March 2023, for making remarks which suggested improper conduct on the part of the Attorney-General, the then-Deputy Attorney-General, and the prosecutors who had been involved in another matter.

2 In August 2020, Mr Ravi made allegations about the President having acted unconstitutionally. He further alleged that the appointments of Mr Lee Hsien Loong (“PM Lee”) and Mr Goh Chok Tong (“PM Goh”) were unconstitutional because of racial considerations. The Law Society brought two charges for misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor against Mr Ravi for these allegations. The first Disciplinary Tribunal (the “DT”) comprising of Mr Siraj Omar SC and Mr Tan Jee Ming, found that pursuant to s 93(1)(c) LPA, cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under s 83(2)(h) LPA, in relation to the respondent’s misconduct of making statements about the President’s conduct and the appointments of the PMs.

3 In November 2021, Mr Ravi was counsel appearing before the Judge at a trial. During the hearing, he got into a disagreement with opposing counsel about the taking of evidence via remote proceedings. When the Judge intervened to give directions and explain the process for taking evidence via remote proceedings, he continually interrupted the Judge rudely and accused the Judge of being biased. This resulted in him being charged for being disrespectful and discourteous to the Judge, and for impugning the propriety and impartiality of the Judge. Subsequently, Mr Ravi falsely represented to the Judge that his client wanted to discontinue the suit. The client discharged him later in the day, after the day’s hearing. Notwithstanding this, two days later, a paralegal from his law firm wrote to the Supreme Court Registry on his behalf to state that they would like to proceed with the trial. This was done without the client’s instruction or knowledge. This resulted in Mr Ravi being charged for falsely informing the Judge that his client wanted to be discharged from the proceedings, and for causing a false email to be sent to the Registry. The second DT, comprising of Mr Sarjit Singh Gill SC and Mr Tan Gee Tuan, found that pursuant to s 93(1)(c) LPA, there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the respondent under s 83 LPA for his misconduct before the Judge at the trial.

4 The following issues arose for the C3J’s determination:

a. Whether due cause has been shown for Mr Ravi to be subject to the sanctions contained in s 83(1) LPA; and

b. If so, what the appropriate sanction ought to be.

5 Section 83(2) LPA sets out the circumstances under which due cause may be shown. Although the fulfilment of one of the s 83(2) LPA limbs is a necessary condition in determining whether due cause has arisen, it is not by itself a sufficient condition. The crux of the analysis lies in the gravamen of the respondent’s conduct: at [45]-[46].

6 Due cause was shown for all six charges Mr Ravi faced. This was because Mr Ravi’s false allegations against the President and the appointments of the PMs went towards undermining these offices and constituted conduct that was wholly improper and gravely irresponsible. Moreover, Mr Ravi’s sustained rude and disrespectful behaviour towards the Judge during the trial, and his allegations of bias against the Judge went towards undermining the administration of justice. Furthermore, Mr Ravi had made dishonest representations to the Judge: at [47]–[51].

7 The paramount considerations of the appropriate sanction in disciplinary proceedings are the protection of the public and the upholding of public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Misconduct involving dishonesty will almost invariably warrant an order for striking off where the dishonesty reveals a character defect rendering the errant solicitor unsuitable for the profession, or undermines the administration of justice. In such cases, striking off would be the presumptive penalty unless there are truly exceptional facts to show that a striking off would be disproportionate. Given that parts of Mr Ravi’s misconduct was found to be dishonest, the inquiry should be focused on whether his dishonesty was the kind that invariably warranted an order for striking off: at [54]–[56], [59]-[60].

8 A solicitor’s history of antecedents and misconduct is a relevant consideration at the sanction stage. The fact that a lawyer had committed a similar disciplinary offence is a significant aggravating factor: at [58].

9 Mr Ravi’s dishonesty warranted an order for striking off. His dishonesty went towards violating the relationship of trust and confidence inherent in a solicitor-client relationship. He not only conducted the case in a manner without taking instructions from the client, but he conducted the case contrary to the client’s interests. He falsely represented to the Judge that his client wanted to be discharged from the proceedings when his client’s intention and interest was to pursue the action. Furthermore, he subsequently falsely represented to the Judge that he had instructions from the client to continue acting for him in the suit when the client had already discharged him earlier: at [61]–[62].

10 There were no exceptional facts to show that a striking off would be disproportionate. Mr Ravi’s bipolar disorder was not a personal mitigating factor that carried any meaningful weight in relation to his dishonest conduct in the present case. The C3J found that the medical reports did not establish how Mr Ravi’s bipolar disorder contributed to his misconduct. One report did not assess his conduct during the material time. The other report stated that he was not of an unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences. Both medical reports did not suggest that Mr Ravi was unaware of his actions, incapable of knowing the nature of his actions, and incapable of discerning whether they were right or wrong: at [63].

11 Mr Ravi’s misconduct in the other charges against him would have warranted a striking off as well, independent of the findings of dishonesty. His unwarranted and unjustified attacks on important public institutions cannot be made, lest public trust and confidence was eroded. This was made more egregious because he sought to introduce the divisive and incendiary allegation of racial bias and discrimination. His disruptive and rude behaviour before the Judge, and his baseless allegations of bias against the Judge was grave and unacceptable, and went towards undermining the administration of justice: [65].

12 The C3J thus found that there was due cause for disciplinary action, with the appropriate sanction being striking off.