Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham: Solicitor's Misconduct and Failure to Deliver Documents

In The Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of a solicitor's misconduct regarding the failure to deliver documents to a client. The Law Society applied to have an order to show cause made absolute against Mr. Arjan Chotrani Bisham, an advocate and solicitor, for his repeated failure to deliver documents to his former client, Mr. Paviter Singh Bajaj, despite multiple requests and deadlines. The court found Mr. Bisham guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and ordered a six-month suspension from practice.

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

The High Court found Arjan Chotrani Bisham guilty of misconduct for repeatedly failing to deliver documents to a client, warranting a six-month suspension.

1.7 Decision Date

4 February 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
The Law Society of Singapore	Applicant	Statutory Board	Order accordingly.	Won	Andrew Ong of Rajah & Tann Kendall Tan of Rajah & Tann
Arjan Chotrani Bisham	Respondent	Individual	Suspension from practice for a period of six months	Lost

3. Judges

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

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Andrew Ong	Rajah & Tann
Kendall Tan	Rajah & Tann

4. Facts

Mr. Arjan failed to deliver copies of files to his former client, Mr. Paviter, despite repeated requests.
Mr. Arjan made a promise to deliver the documents by a certain date but failed to honor it.
Mr. Arjan failed to respond to numerous telephone calls and letters.
Mr. Arjan was imposed a penalty of S$5,000 by the Council of the Law Society for his initial failure to deliver the documents.
Mr. Arjan continued to withhold copies of the files even after the penalty was imposed.

5. Formal Citations

The Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham, OS 1407/2000, [2001] SGHC 24

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1995-01-01	Mr. Arjan acted for Mr. Paviter and Mrs. Mahtani in the attempted purchase of a property.
1995-01-01	Mr. Arjan was instructed by Mr. Paviter to act for him in the attempted purchase of 25 other properties.
1998-04-20	Mr. Paviter sought advice from Drew & Napier concerning his rights against Mr. Arjan.
1998-05-04	Drew & Napier wrote to Mr. Arjan to ask for copies of all the relevant files.
1998-05-09	Drew & Napier sent a reminder to Mr. Arjan.
1998-05-12	Drew & Napier tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr. Arjan through the telephone.
1998-05-13	Drew & Napier tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr. Arjan through the telephone.
1998-05-18	Mr. Paviter wrote to Mr. Arjan.
1998-05-21	Drew & Napier sent another reminder to Mr. Arjan.
1998-05-23	Meeting between Mr. Paviter, Mr. Kumar, and Mr. Arjan.
1998-05-25	Letter sent to remind Mr. Arjan of the deadline.
1998-05-28	Drew & Napier wrote to Mr. Arjan again and set him a deadline.
1998-06-05	Mr. Paviter wrote to Mr. Arjan and set 8 June 1998 as the next deadline.
1998-06-09	Drew & Napier tried to contact him through the telephone.
1998-06-10	Drew & Napier tried to contact him through the telephone.
1998-06-11	Drew & Napier sent another letter reiterating the request for the copies of the files.
1998-06-25	Another unsuccessful telephone call followed by another letter from Drew & Napier.
1998-06-26	Mr. Paviter contacted Drew & Napier and told Mr. Kumar that Mr. Arjan had called him to say that the copies of the files relating to the attempted purchase of the first property were ready for collection.
1998-07-15	Drew & Napier wrote to Mr. Arjan again to ask for the documents pertaining to the 25 properties.
1998-07-27	Drew & Napier tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr. Arjan through the telephone.
1998-07-28	Another letter was sent by Drew & Napier.
1998-07-28	Another unsuccessful attempt was made to contact Mr. Arjan on the telephone.
1998-08-05	Mr. Paviter made the first of two complaints to the Law Society.
1998-10-29	The Inquiry Committee determined that a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Committee was not necessary.
1998-12-05	The Law Society wrote to Mr. Arjan to inform him of the IC`s recommendation.
1999-01-04	The Law Society sent a reminder.
1999-01-18	A further reminder was sent.
1999-02-23	The Law Society wrote to confirm Mr. Arjan's verbal indication.
1999-03-19	The Council determined that no cause of sufficient gravity exists for a formal investigation but that the advocate and solicitor should be ordered to pay a penalty under section 88.
1999-03-23	Mr. Arjan was notified of this decision.
1999-04-22	Mr. Arjan paid the full sum by way of a cheque.
1999-05-25	Mr. Arjan wrote to Drew & Napier to inform them that they could collect the copies on 31 May 1999 or 1 June 1999.
1999-05-31	Mr. Arjan informed Drew & Napier that he was not ready to hand over the documents that day but that he would be ready on 2 June 1999.
1999-06-02	Drew & Napier collected the documents from Mr. Arjan`s office.
1999-01-15	Mr. Paviter had made another complaint to the Law Society.
1999-04-07	This IC invited Mr Arjan on 7 and 22 April 1999 to give a written explanation of his conduct but he failed to respond.
1999-04-22	This IC invited Mr Arjan on 7 and 22 April 1999 to give a written explanation of his conduct but he failed to respond.
1999-05-13	Mr. Arjan also failed to appear at this IC`s hearing on 13 May 1999, despite having been informed by way of a notice of the hearing.
1999-09-23	A Disciplinary Committee was duly constituted on 23 September 1999 to hear the parties.
2001-02-05	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Arjan's conduct amounted to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to deliver documents
  - Failure to respond to communications

8. Remedies Sought

Disciplinary action
Suspension from practice

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of professional duty
Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

Professional Responsibility
Regulatory Law

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 361	Singapore	Cited for the principle that under s 83(2)(h) the solicitor`s misconduct has to be unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and that the standard of judgment to be applied is fixed by the court and is not the standard of peer judgment.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR 165	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the standard of unbefitting conduct is less strict than the standard of `grossly improper conduct`.
Re Weare	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1893] 2 QB 439	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a solicitor need only be shown to have been guilty of `such conduct as would render him unfit to remain as a member of an honourable profession`.
Bolton v Law Society	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 All ER 486	England and Wales	Cited for guidance with respect to disciplinary sentencing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)	Singapore
s 83(2)(h) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Solicitor's lien
Misconduct
Legal Profession Act
Disciplinary proceedings
Delivery of documents
Professional duty
Unbefitting conduct

15.2 Keywords

Law Society
Arjan Chotrani Bisham
Solicitor
Misconduct
Legal Profession Act
Singapore
Disciplinary
Documents
Suspension

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	95
Legal Profession	90
Solicitor's duties	60
Contract Law	20

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Professional Misconduct
Disciplinary Proceedings