Law Society v Ganesan Krishnan: Show Cause Action & Conduct Unbefitting Advocate and Solicitor
The Law Society of Singapore applied to the High Court to make absolute an order to show cause against Ganesan Krishnan, an advocate and solicitor, for conduct unbefitting his profession. The Law Society alleged that Krishnan failed to advise clients, Mr. Abdul Rahim bin Japri and Mdm Ayatti Binti Kepol, to seek independent legal advice when they appeared before him to execute a power of attorney in favor of Poh Keng Ann, a representative of DK Credit Pte Ltd, a licensed moneylender. The High Court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J, and Yong Pung How CJ, found Krishnan guilty and suspended him from practice for three years.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Mr. Ganesan was suspended from practice for a period of three years.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society brought a show cause action against Ganesan Krishnan for conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. The court suspended Krishnan from practice for three years.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Order to show cause made absolute | Won | |
| Ganesan Krishnan | Respondent | Individual | Suspended from practice | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Ganesan was an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore for 25 years.
- Mr. Ganesan acted for DK Credit Pte Ltd, a licensed moneylender, in preparing a power of attorney.
- Mr. Ganesan failed to advise Mr. Abdul Rahim bin Japri and Mdm Ayatti Binti Kepol to seek independent legal advice.
- The power of attorney authorized Poh Keng Ann to sell the complainants’ HDB flat and receive the monies from the sale.
- Mr. Ganesan knew that Poh Keng Ann was a representative of DK Credit.
- The complainants borrowed $21,000 from DK Credit, using their flat as security.
- The complainants only received about $21,000 from the sale of their flat when the sale proceeds were $117,425.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Ganesan Krishnan, OS 1208/2002, [2003] SGHC 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Ganesan was called to the Bar | |
| Mr. Abdul Rahim bin Japri and Mdm Ayatti Binti Kepol appeared before Mr. Ganesan to execute the power of attorney | |
| Counsel for the Law Society, Mr Wong Siew Hong, sent a letter to Mr. Ganesan's counsel, Mr. Hassan Almenoar | |
| Mr. Almenoar provided answers to Mr. Wong Siew Hong's letter | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Conduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Ganesan's behavior constituted a failure to adhere to elementary principles of professional conduct and that he was guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to advise independent legal advice
- Conflict of interest
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Ganesan was in breach of r 30(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to show cause
- Suspension from practice
9. Cause of Actions
- Conduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 684 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Disciplinary Committee's obligation to refer the matter to the court of three Judges upon Mr Ganesan’s admission of guilt and regarding disciplinary sentencing. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 3 WLR 1021 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for good practice when preparing a power of attorney, including private consultation with the donor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Banphanuk & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited regarding the status of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Ganesun s/o Kannan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 560 | Singapore | Cited regarding the status of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Mok Swee Kok v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 140 | Singapore | Cited regarding the status of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Public Prosecutor v Liew Kim Choo | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 699 | Singapore | Cited regarding the status of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 775 | Singapore | Cited regarding the solicitor's awareness of misconduct. |
| Re Weare | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1893] 2 QB 439 | England and Wales | Cited regarding conduct that would render someone unfit to remain a member of an honourable profession. |
| Bolton v Law Society | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 All ER 486 | England and Wales | Cited for guidance on disciplinary sentencing, particularly regarding integrity, probity, and trustworthiness. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Singham Dennis Mahendran | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 566 | Singapore | Cited regarding disciplinary sentencing. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 361 | Singapore | Cited regarding disciplinary sentencing. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited regarding the nature of show cause proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 234 | Singapore | Cited regarding the nature of show cause proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited regarding the objectives for the imposition of penalty against an errant advocate and solicitor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 83(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 83(2)(h) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129) | Singapore |
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Ed) | Singapore |
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Power of attorney
- Moneylender
- Independent legal advice
- Conflict of interest
- HDB flat
- Show cause
- Professional conduct
- Disciplinary proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession Act
- show cause
- advocate
- solicitor
- professional conduct
- moneylender
- power of attorney
- suspension
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Show cause action | 90 |
| Professional conduct | 80 |
| Moneylenders Act | 70 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 60 |
| Agency Law | 30 |
| Guarantee | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Moneylending
- Real Estate