Law Society v Ong Ying Ping: Misconduct of Advocate and Solicitor in Prison Visit

In Law Society of Singapore v Ong Ying Ping, the High Court of Singapore addressed a charge against Ong Ying Ping, an advocate and solicitor, for misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. The Law Society alleged that Ong misled prison officers by failing to disclose that the person accompanying him to interview a prisoner was the prisoner's wife. The court found Ong guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and ordered his suspension from practice for two years.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Respondent suspended from practice for two years.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ong Ying Ping, an advocate and solicitor, was found guilty of misconduct for misleading prison officers about the identity of a prisoner's visitor. The court suspended him from practice for two years.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication GrantedWon
Ong Ying PingRespondentIndividualSuspended from PracticeLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudicial CommissionerYes
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramesh TiwaryEdmond Pereira and Partners
Chia Boon TeckChia Yeo Partnership
C R RajahTan Rajah and Cheah

4. Facts

  1. Ong Ying Ping, an advocate and solicitor, represented Ivan Ng Chin Hoe, a prisoner at Queenstown Remand Prison.
  2. Ong requested permission to interview Ivan Ng, but did not seek permission for anyone else to attend.
  3. The prison authorities granted permission only for Ong to attend the interview.
  4. Ong informed Ivan Ng's wife, Ms Tan Teck Cheng Linda, about the interview.
  5. Ms Tan asked the Chief Wardress if she could accompany Ong, but was told it was not possible.
  6. Ong and Ms Tan arrived at the prison, and Ong told a prison officer that Ms Tan was his assistant.
  7. Ong did not disclose that Ms Tan was the prisoner's wife.
  8. The prison officers allowed Ong and Ms Tan to proceed to the interview room.
  9. The Prison Superintendent wrote to Ong twice to clarify Ms Tan's status, but received no response.
  10. Ong later stated that Ms Tan assisted him because he was unfamiliar with the prisoner's way of speaking.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Ong Ying Ping, OS 1084/2004, NM 27/2005, [2005] SGHC 120

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent requested permission to interview prisoner.
Prison authorities granted permission to respondent to interview prisoner.
Respondent interviewed prisoner at Queenstown Remand Prison.
Prison Superintendent wrote to respondent to clarify Ms Tan’s status.
Prison Superintendent wrote to respondent to clarify Ms Tan’s status.
Respondent's partner, Ms Susan Tay, received a telephone call from the prison.
Respondent replied by letter to the prison.
Law Society informed respondent that a complaint had been lodged against him.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
    • Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misleading prison officers
      • Failure to disclose relationship between visitor and prisoner
      • Disregard of prison rules on visitation

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order to show cause why the respondent should not be disciplined

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Misconduct
  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bolton v Law SocietyCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 All ER 486England and WalesCited for the principle that a solicitor's conduct must meet high standards of integrity, probity, and trustworthiness.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR 696SingaporeCited for the principle that disciplinary proceedings serve to protect the public and maintain the standards of the legal profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Ganesan KrishnanHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR 251SingaporeCited for the principle that considerations in mitigation have less effect in disciplinary proceedings than in criminal cases.
Bolton v Law SocietyCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 WLR 512England and WalesCited for the principle that considerations in mitigation have less effect in disciplinary proceedings than in criminal cases.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian RickHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 168SingaporeCited for the principle that considerations in mitigation have less effect in disciplinary proceedings than in criminal cases.
Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei FenHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 234SingaporeCited for the principle that considerations in mitigation have less effect in disciplinary proceedings than in criminal cases.
Allinson v General Council of Medical Education & RegistrationQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1894] 1 QB 750England and WalesCited regarding the standard of judgment to be applied in a scrutiny of misconduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong GeoffreyHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR 361SingaporeCited regarding the standard of judgment to be applied in a scrutiny of misconduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin JeffreyHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR 215SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor will almost invariably be struck off the roll where the charge against him or her involves proven dishonesty
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 165SingaporeCited for the principle that Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act is a catch-all provision which can be invoked when the conduct does not fall within any of the other enumerated grounds but is nevertheless considered unacceptable.
Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani BishamHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 684SingaporeCited for the principle that Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act is a catch-all provision which can be invoked when the conduct does not fall within any of the other enumerated grounds but is nevertheless considered unacceptable.
Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh ChopraHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 775SingaporeCited for the principle that Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act is a catch-all provision which can be invoked when the conduct does not fall within any of the other enumerated grounds but is nevertheless considered unacceptable.
Re WeareQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1893] 2 QB 439England and WalesCited 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’.
In re A PractitionerSupreme Court of South AustraliaYes(1984) 36 SASR 590AustraliaCited for the principle that suspension is appropriate for cases where a legal practitioner has fallen below the high standards to be expected of such a practitioner, but not in such a way as to indicate that he lacks the qualities of character and trustworthiness which are the necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities of a legal practitioner.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(h)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Misconduct
  • Advocate and solicitor
  • Prison rules
  • Visitation
  • Misleading
  • Prison officer
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Queenstown Remand Prison

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Misconduct
  • Disciplinary Action
  • Prison Visit
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act90
Disciplinary Proceedings85
Professional Misconduct75
Prison Rules60
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility