THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v KASTURIBAI D/O MANICKAM

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 55 consider?

The judgment refers to LPOA under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A), Land Titles Act (Cap 157), and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 55 High Court (General Division) 28 February 2024 • C3J/OA 6/2022 • 17 min read

4 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Legal Profession - Show cause action Legal Profession - Disciplinary proceedings

Practice Areas

Legal Profession

Judges (3)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Delivered Steven Chong Coram Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (9)

A Rajandran Firm Bih Li & Lee LLP Firm K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Firm A Rajandran Counsel Respondent Chua Siew Ling Aileen Counsel Applicant Darrell Low Kim Boon Counsel Applicant Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel Respondent Ng Rui Wen Counsel Applicant Petrina Tan Heng Kiat Counsel Applicant

Parties (2)

The Law Society of Singapore Applicant Kasturibai d/o Manickam Respondent

Case Significance

Law Society of Singapore v Kasturibai d/o Manickam [2024] SGHC 55 was decided by a Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges on 28 February 2024, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA delivering the grounds of decision, sitting with Sundaresh Menon CJ and Steven Chong JCA. The matter, Originating Application No 6 of 2022, was an application by the Law Society of Singapore for Ms Kasturibai d/o Manickam, an advocate and solicitor of about 25 years' standing, to be sanctioned under section 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. The application arose out of her conduct as solicitor in a conveyancing transaction, in which she purported to sign as a witness on six related documents whose execution she did not witness; the complainant, Ms Santha Devi d/o V Puthenveetil Kesava Pillay, was a co-owner of the property being sold.

As framed by the catchwords, the case concerned the legal profession, namely a show cause action and disciplinary proceedings. Ms Kasturibai did not dispute that due cause for disciplinary sanction had been shown, leaving only the appropriate sanction to be determined, and at the conclusion of the hearing on 16 January 2024 the court ordered that she be suspended for a period of 12 months. The Law Society was represented by Bih Li & Lee LLP, with counsel including Chua Siew Ling Aileen and Darrell Low Kim Boon, while Ms Kasturibai was represented by K&L Gates Straits Law LLC and A Rajandran, with counsel including Narayanan Sreenivasan. The judgment cited statutes including the Legal Profession Act and the Land Titles Act.

[2024] SGHC 55 explained

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v KASTURIBAI D/O MANICKAM ([2024] SGHC 55) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 28 February 2024. It is categorised under Legal Profession. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 55 about?

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v KASTURIBAI D/O MANICKAM ([2024] SGHC 55) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Legal Profession - Show cause action” and “Legal Profession - Disciplinary proceedings”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 55 consider?

The judgment refers to LPOA under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A), Land Titles Act (Cap 157), and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 55?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 55 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

28 February 2024

Case summary

Law Society of Singapore v Kasturibai d/o Manickam [2024] SGHC 55

Originating Application No 6 of 2022

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Court of Three Judges (delivered by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean):

Outcome: C3J orders 12-month suspension for solicitor who falsely attested to witnessing client’s signature on conveyancing documents.

1 This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) for the respondent, Ms Kasturibai d/o Manickam (“Ms Kasturibai”) to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”).

Background to the application and material facts

2 Ms Kasturibai, who was a director of East Asia Law Corporation (“EALC”), acted for the complainant, Ms Santha Devi d/o V Puthenveetil Kesava Pillay (the “Complainant”), and her brother, Mr Raman s/o Puthenveetil Kesava Pillay (“Mr Raman”), in the sale of a property which they held as tenants-in-common.

3 In the course of the transaction, Ms Kasturibai signed on six conveyancing documents as witness to the signatures of the Complainant and Mr Raman when in fact she had not witnessed them. Five of the six documents were sent to the purchasers’ lawyers, with the intention that they would be relied on.

4 The Law Society brought two principal charges against Ms Kasturibai under s 83(2)(b) of the LPA and two alternative charges under s 83(2)(h) in respect of her false attestations. Ms Kasturibai contested only the principal charges.

5 The disciplinary tribunal convicted Ms Kasturibai on both principal charges and found that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action to be taken against her. Pursuant to this, the Law Society applied to the C3J for Ms Kasturibai to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the LPA in respect of the principal charges. Ms Kasturibai did not contest that due cause had been shown against her. The Law Society argued that Ms Kasturibai should be suspended for a period of at least 30 months.

The court’s ground of decision

6 The C3J held that Ms Kasturibai’s false attestation of documents did not demonstrate a character defect or undermine the administration of justice so was to attract an order of striking off as a presumptive penalty: at [18].

7 The C3J disagreed with the Law Society that it was appropriate to use the three-year suspension imposed in Law Society of Singapore v Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin [2023] 3 SLR 509 (“Lutfi”) as a starting point and guide for the sanction to be imposed in this case. There was no evidence that Ms Kasturibai had put in place a “system” of delegating authority to non-legally trained staff like the solitictor in Lutfi had: at [19]–[20].

8 The more appropriate precedent was the case of Law Society of Singapore v Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan [2022] 4 SLR 462 (“Thirumurthy”), which involved a solicitor who had falsely attested that the complainant had signed a power of attorney in his presence. However, a higher sentence was warranted in the present case because Ms Kasturibai had signed as witness on six documents over the course of nearly two months. Further, one of the documents she had falsely attested to was a transfer instrument accompanied by a certificate of correctness: at [22]–[23].

9 The C3J rejected Ms Kasturibai’s defence that it was the Complainant and Mr Raman who requested for the documents to be witnessed in abstentia. Even if this request had been made and accommodated by Ms Kasturibai, it would not have changed the fact of her false witnessing of the documents: at [24].

10 However, Ms Kasturibai did not lack moral insight and judgment, and showed her remorse and sincerity. She did not contest that due cause had been shown, and was frank about her wrongdoing in the Law Society’s investigations. The C3J was persuaded that her conduct was an error of judgment resulting from a lapse of caution: at [28]–[29].

11 Having regard to all the circumstances, the C3J ordered that Ms Kasturibai should be suspended for a period of 12 months: at [30].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

What was the outcome in Law Society of Singapore v Kasturibai [2024] SGHC 55?

A Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges suspended advocate and solicitor Ms Kasturibai d/o Manickam for 12 months on 28 February 2024. She did not dispute that due cause for disciplinary sanction had been shown, leaving only the appropriate sanction to be determined.

What conduct led to the disciplinary action in [2024] SGHC 55?

Ms Kasturibai, a solicitor of about 25 years' standing, purported to sign as a witness on six related documents in a conveyancing transaction whose execution she did not witness. The complainant, Ms Santha Devi d/o V Puthenveetil Kesava Pillay, was a co-owner of the property sold.