THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE v LI ZHONGSHENG

Facts

The Law Society of Singapore brought Originating Application No 4 of 2025 before the Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges against Li Zhongsheng, an advocate and solicitor admitted on 23 August 2021. The application was made under ss 94A(1) and 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed), seeking that he suffer one of the punishments in s 83(1) of that Act.

On 4 February 2025 the respondent pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, cheating under s 417 of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed). He had taken a card holder containing a credit card that a previous passenger left in a private hire vehicle, and used the card to buy items at a store worth $4,349 in total, deceiving the store's operator into thinking he was authorised to use it. Two further charges were taken into consideration: dishonest misappropriation of the card holder under s 403, and a second cheating charge for buying a packet of cigarettes with the card. He was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, which he served.

The Attorney-General's Chambers wrote to the Law Society on 30 April 2025, taking the view that s 94A(1) required an application under s 98, and the Law Society filed this application on 10 July 2025. It sought a striking-off order, and the respondent accepted that due cause had been shown and that he should be struck off.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's conviction for cheating was for an offence involving dishonesty, so that due cause was shown under s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act
2. Whether there were exceptional facts justifying a departure from the presumptive sanction of striking off

Holding

The court granted the application and ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. It fixed costs of the application in favour of the Law Society at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements.

Reasoning

On due cause, the court noted that it had to treat the conviction as final and conclusive under s 83(6). Deception is an element of cheating as defined in s 415 of the Penal Code, so dishonesty is built into the offence. Relying on Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang [2018] 5 SLR 1068, the court observed that asserting something one knows to be untrue necessarily involves dishonesty, which matches the meaning of deception in Leck Kim Koon v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 1050. The respondent had therefore been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty.

On sanction, dishonesty that reveals a defect of character almost invariably leads to striking off, and where dishonesty is integral to a criminal offence striking off is the presumptive penalty unless truly exceptional facts make it disproportionate, which is extremely rare. No such facts existed. The respondent accepted that his mental conditions had no causal link to the offence, and mitigating factors carry less weight in disciplinary proceedings, where protection of the public and the good name of the profession are paramount, as stated in Law Society of Singapore v Caines Colin [2004] SGHC 250. He did not argue for a lesser penalty.

The court added that the respondent had apologised, made full restitution, pleaded guilty, accepted striking off, sought psychiatric treatment with monthly therapy, and completed a course on handling workplace stressors. These steps did not excuse the offence, but the court commended them and urged him to continue.

From the judgment