SINGAPORE UPDATE

LEGALESE OR LESSLEGAL?
Among the cases against lawyers in Singapore, there were 2 cases recently that were quite bizarre:

The first case involved a belly dancing instructor.

Her problem began when she got involved in a property transaction and had to instruct a lawyer. Surely she expected a discussion about the transaction when her lawyer showed up at her apartment late at night. After all, that was the reason he gave when he insisted on meeting her at about 11pm in February three years ago. Instead, the lawyer checked her condominium unit to see if she was alone before 'cajoling' her to perform a belly dance for him.
The client, who lived alone, was naturally stunned, and rejected him.

A disciplinary tribunal, arising from the client's complaint, found the lawyer "guilty" and reprimanded him for his unbefitting professional conduct.

The tribunal heard how the lawyer of 14 years had gone to the client's apartment, under the pretext of discussing a property deal he was handling for her, claiming that he had gone (at 11 pm) there to assess its value for a potential sale. Strangely, before he turned up, it is alleged that he sent her a text message, asking: 'U (sic) need anything I buy wine, food or cigarettes.'

The tribunal felt that the lawyer was not only untruthful, but offered explanations which were 'unbelievable'. The reason he gave for visiting her home was 'implausible and unlikely', given that the job of assessing how much the unit was worth belonged to a valuer.

Counsel for the lawyer had even argued during the hearing that belly dancing is an art that may 'not necessarily have sexual connotations'.

Belly Good, Counsel.

The Second case involved a high flying lawyer from one of Singapore's largest firms, who stole items from a hotel room in Hong Kong. For this, he has been struck off the roll of legal practitioners in Singapore.

Apparently, the lawyer pleaded guilty to the theft in a Hong Kong court two years ago and was sentenced to a year's jail, suspended for two years if he stayed out of trouble. He was also barred from practising in Hong Kong for five years.

The Court said: 'Where the advocate and solicitor concerned has been guilty of dishonesty, the court will almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigating factors... order that he or she be struck off the roll.'

But the court also said that lawyer's sterling track record and his own decision to remove himself from practice afterwards made him a good candidate to reapply for reinstatement after a decent period.

Sometime in January 2008, and while he was in Hong Kong on a business trip, the lawyer entered an unoccupied room at the Novotel Watergate Hong Kong hotel and stole several electronic items including a cellphone and an iPod nano worth a total of HK$9,500 (S$1,700). Having been filmed by a security camera, the lawyer was arrested a few hours later and the stolen items were found under his bed.

At his trial, the lawyer produced evidence from two psychiatrists to show that he was suffering from a major depressive disorder affecting his judgment and awareness. The court bought it but the judge opined that while he accepted that the lawyer had not been fully aware of what he was doing, he was not 'robotic' either. The psychiatric evidence was considered for mitigation rather than in the plea of guilt.

Three days after his conviction, the lawyer dutifully informed the Law Society in Singapore and voluntarily suspended himself from practice.

High Price to pay for an iPod

Contributed by Lawrence Fong, Managing Director, GCSL Singapore