Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence: Show Cause Action for Theft Conviction

In Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by the Law Society of Singapore for Amdad Hussein Lawrence, an advocate and solicitor, to show cause why he should not be disciplined following his conviction for theft. The court ordered that Mr. Lawrence be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors, citing the dishonesty inherent in the theft conviction and the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Order accordingly.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Amdad Hussein Lawrence, an advocate and solicitor, faced a show cause action for a theft conviction. The court ordered him to be struck off the roll.

1.7 Decision Date

31 August 2000

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
The Law Society of Singapore	Applicant	Statutory Board	Order accordingly.	Won	Wong Siew Hong, Hemalatha d/o Silwaraju
Amdad Hussein Lawrence	Respondent	Individual	Struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin JA	Judge of Appeal	Yes
L P Thean JA	Judge of Appeal	No
Yong Pung How CJ	Chief Justice	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Wong Siew Hong	Yeo Wong & Thian
Hemalatha d/o Silwaraju	Yeo Wong & Thian

4. Facts

Amdad Hussein Lawrence was a 39-year-old advocate and solicitor of 15 years' standing.
Lawrence pleaded guilty to theft in a dwelling-place under s 380 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
Lawrence was observed placing unpaid items into a plastic bag inside a shopping trolley at a supermarket.
The unpaid items, including a VCD player, VCDs, food items, and a toy, amounted to $478.50.
The Law Society initiated show cause proceedings against Lawrence following his conviction.

5. Formal Citations

The Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence, OS 541/2000, [2000] SGHC 180

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1985-06-12	Amdad Hussein Lawrence admitted to practice as an advocate and solicitor.
1998-12-16	Amdad Hussein Lawrence committed theft at Carrefour supermarket.
1999-11-17	Amdad Hussein Lawrence pleaded guilty to theft in a dwelling-place.
2000-09-01	High Court ordered Amdad Hussein Lawrence to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

7. Legal Issues

Whether advocate and solicitor unfit for legal profession
- Outcome: The court held that the advocate and solicitor was unfit for the legal profession.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 4 SLR 168
  - [1994] 3 SLR 520
  - [1996] 2 SLR 184
  - [1893] 2 QB 439
  - [2000] 1 SLR 234
  - SLR 39
  - [1988] SLR 195
  - [1999] 1 SLR 696
  - [1999] 4 SLR 50
  - [2000] 1 SLR 361
  - [1994] 3 SLR 531
  - [1998] 3 SLR 414
  - [1999] 2 SLR 229

8. Remedies Sought

Striking off from the roll of advocates and solicitors

9. Cause of Actions

Show cause action

10. Practice Areas

Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 168	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a criminal conviction must be accepted as final and conclusive and that it is not open to the respondent or the court to go behind his conviction.
Re Mohomed Jiffry Muljee	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 520	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a criminal conviction must be accepted as final and conclusive and that it is not open to the respondent or the court to go behind his conviction.
Law Society of Singapore v Narmal Singh	High Court	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR 184	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a criminal conviction must be accepted as final and conclusive and that it is not open to the respondent or the court to go behind his conviction.
Re Weare, A Solicitor	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1893] 2 QB 439	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that not every violation of the criminal law implies a defect of character which makes the offender unfit for his profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 234	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the offence must be of such a character that it is expedient for the protection of the public and the preservation of the good name of the profession to remove the solicitor from the roll or from practice.
Ratnam v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	SLR 39	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the penalty imposed by the sentencing court served as a good indication of the moral obliquity or turpitude involved in the solicitor`s conduct.
Re Jeyaretnam JB	High Court	Yes	[1988] SLR 195	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the fact that the offence was not committed by the respondent in his capacity as a solicitor was wholly irrelevant.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 696	Singapore	Cited for the principles on disciplinary sentencing.
Law Society of Singapore v Suresh Kumar Suppiah	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 50	Singapore	Cited for the principles on disciplinary sentencing.
Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 361	Singapore	Cited for the principles on disciplinary sentencing.
Re Knight Glenn Jeyasingam	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 531	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the paramount considerations must be the protection of the public and the preservation of the good name of the profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Edmund Nathan	High Court	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR 414	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the more senior an advocate and solicitor, the more damage is done to the integrity of the legal profession as a consequence of the solicitor`s misconduct.
Law Society of Singpore v VCS Vardan	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 229	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the respondent had caused harm to the profession as a whole.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224)	Singapore
s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 83(6) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 94A of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Show cause
Theft in dwelling
Legal Profession Act
Dishonesty
Misconduct
Mitigating circumstances
Defect of character
Unfit for profession
Public confidence
Integrity
Proprietor
Advocate and solicitor

15.2 Keywords

Legal Profession
Show cause
Theft
Conviction
Disciplinary action
Singapore

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Professional Misconduct

17. Areas of Law

Legal Profession
Criminal Law
Regulatory Law