The Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh

Facts

Dhanwant Singh, an advocate and solicitor, became partner and manager of S K Kumar Law Practice LLP on 11 April 2017 after the previous head, Mr Kumar, was struck off. He ceased practice on 24 February 2022 when he was adjudicated a bankrupt. The firm employed Mr Ram, a conveyancing clerk of over 20 years, who handled a property purchase for His Bounty Associates Pte Ltd (HBA), whose sole director was Ms Wong. In February 2017 HBA paid $167,600 to the firm for the final part of the purchase price, but Mr Ram misappropriated the money. He later admitted sending letters to the seller's solicitors asking for extensions of time on false grounds, and then, in December 2021, sending inaccurate updates to HBA's solicitors and Ms Wong, some in Mr Singh's name, to stall for time. The balance was eventually paid partly with blank cheques Mr Singh had signed at Mr Ram's request. Ms Wong had long believed Mr Ram was a lawyer.

After Ms Wong complained, a Disciplinary Tribunal found two charges of failing to supervise Mr Ram under r 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 proved and referred the matter to the court. The Law Society brought Originating Application No 9 of 2024 before the Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges, while maintaining that the matter should instead be remitted to the tribunal or attract a $15,000 penalty. Mr Singh did not contest the charges before the court and aligned himself with the Law Society.

Issues

1. Whether the Disciplinary Tribunal erred in finding cause of sufficient gravity to refer the matter to the court
2. Whether due cause for disciplinary action was shown under s 83(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966
3. Whether a penalty of $15,000 or a suspension was the appropriate sanction

Holding

The court found due cause shown and rejected the parties' agreed position. It ordered that Mr Singh be suspended from practice for five years, the maximum term, with the suspension to start from the date of his discharge from bankruptcy. Costs of the application were fixed at $10,000 without the disbursements sought, and the tribunal's costs orders were ordered to stand.

Reasoning

The court agreed with the parties that the tribunal should not have relied on Mr Singh's 2019 antecedent in deciding gravity, since antecedents are irrelevant at that stage. Even so, cause of sufficient gravity was shown. Mr Singh conceded he did not supervise Mr Ram at all and had no idea what he was doing, a state of affairs lasting over four years. The absence of dishonesty and personal benefit were not mitigating, as Troy Yeo showed; his lack of awareness was itself the result of not supervising; and although the charges concerned one transaction, the failure went far beyond it, with Mr Ram effectively running a conveyancing department as if he were a partner.

On sanction, a penalty was inadequate for what the court called quite an extreme case. Aggravating factors included the client's long-standing belief that Mr Ram was a lawyer, Mr Singh's nonchalance when Ms Wong complained on 28 October 2021, his recommending Mr Ram for further conveyancing work, his seniority, and his recent antecedent for placing conveyancing money in the wrong account, for which he paid a $50,000 penalty. His remorse came only before the court. The Law Society's claim that the client suffered no loss was rejected: although a late stamping penalty was waived, HBA had to pay the stamp duty again and had not recovered the $50,280 it paid the firm in 2014. Compared with the four-year suspension in Troy Yeo, this case was more serious because no supervisory system existed at all, the wrongdoing went on far longer and Mr Singh had an antecedent, so an uplift to the maximum was warranted. The start date was deferred so his bankruptcy would not negate the suspension.

From the judgment