Law Society of Singapore v Caines Colin: Criminal Breach of Trust and Striking Off Order
In Law Society of Singapore v Caines Colin, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Tay Yong Kwang J, ordered Colin Caines to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors on 8 November 2004. Caines was convicted on four charges of criminal breach of trust for misappropriating clients' funds. The Law Society applied to make absolute an order to show cause under the Legal Profession Act, arguing that Caines's conviction demonstrated a defect of character rendering him unfit for the profession. The court agreed, emphasizing the need to protect public confidence in the legal profession and deter similar misconduct.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Order to show cause made absolute; respondent struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Colin Caines, an advocate and solicitor, was struck off the roll for criminal breach of trust, betraying client trust and misappropriating funds.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Association | Application Granted | Won | Leslie Phua Oei Heong |
| Caines Colin | Respondent | Individual | Order to Show Cause Made Absolute | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leslie Phua Oei Heong | Phua Wai Partnership |
4. Facts
- The respondent was an advocate and solicitor practicing as a sole proprietor.
- The respondent was convicted on four charges of criminal breach of trust.
- The respondent misappropriated client funds for his personal use.
- The respondent made unauthorised withdrawals from the firm’s clients’ account.
- The respondent failed to make restitution to any of his clients.
- The Law Society applied to make absolute an order to show cause under the Legal Profession Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Caines Colin, OS 959/2004, NM 63/2004, [2004] SGHC 250
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| India International Insurance Pte Ltd paid the respondent $4,500 as partial settlement of Yeo’s claim. | |
| A further $440 was received for Yeo Soh Choo’s claim. | |
| The respondent received a $2,000 deposit from the purchaser for Diana Chan and Richard Kong Guan Huat's matrimonial property. | |
| Fortunecom entrusted the respondent with $4,000 cash. | |
| NTUC paid the respondent $8,200 as settlement for Lim’s claim. | |
| A further $180,410.51 was received for Diana Chan and Richard Kong Guan Huat's matrimonial property. | |
| The firm’s clients’ account was finally closed with a nil balance. | |
| The Commercial Affairs Department received a complaint against the respondent from Diana Chan. | |
| The respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted on four charges of criminal breach of trust. | |
| The court granted the application and ordered the respondent to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The respondent was convicted on four charges of criminal breach of trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's actions constituted professional misconduct and ordered him to be struck off the roll.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking off the roll of advocates and solicitors
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Misconduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Mohomed Jiffry Muljee | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 520 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must accept the respondent’s conviction as final and conclusive. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Narmal Singh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 184 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must accept the respondent’s conviction as final and conclusive. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 209 | Singapore | Cited to highlight that not every conviction implies a defect of character that renders an advocate and solicitor unfit for his profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Loh Wai Mun Daniel | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 261 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that offences involving dishonesty committed in the capacity as an advocate and solicitor is sufficient to demonstrate that due cause has been shown. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that where a solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence, the court has almost invariably chosen to strike the offending solicitor off the roll. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that disciplinary action is aimed at deterring other like-minded solicitors from similar defaults and ensuring the protection of public confidence in the administration of justice. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Caleb Charles James | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 256 | Singapore | Cited to support 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 Wee Wei Fen | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 234 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the paramount considerations must be the protection of the public and the preservation of the good name of the profession. |
| Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 608 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the need to protect the public from errant lawyers and the serious harm which such lawyers could inflict on the public and the reputation of the legal profession. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal breach of trust
- Misappropriation
- Professional misconduct
- Show cause order
- Striking off
- Advocate and solicitor
- Clients’ account
- Restitution
15.2 Keywords
- criminal breach of trust
- legal profession
- disciplinary action
- Law Society
- Singapore
- advocate
- solicitor
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Criminal Law
- Regulatory Law