Law Society of Singapore v Tham Kok Leong Thomas: Solicitor Breaching Stakeholder Undertaking and Making Misleading Statements
In Law Society of Singapore v Tham Kok Leong Thomas, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society of Singapore to make absolute an order to show cause against Tham Kok Leong Thomas, an advocate and solicitor. The proceedings related to charges alleging grossly improper conduct concerning his role as a stakeholder. The court found that Tham breached his duties as a stakeholder by prematurely releasing monies to his client and making misleading statements about the stakeholder sums. The court suspended Tham from practice for a period of two years and ordered him to pay the costs of the Law Society in the disciplinary proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order to show cause made absolute; 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
The High Court found Tham Kok Leong Thomas guilty of grossly improper conduct for breaching his undertaking as a stakeholder and making misleading statements.
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 | |
| Tham Kok Leong Thomas | Respondent | Individual | Suspended from practice for two years | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Taevivat deposited US$60,000 with the respondent's law firm as a stakeholder.
- The deposit was pursuant to an agreement for the issuance of a letter of credit.
- The respondent released US$54,000 to Dr. Wang the same day as the deposit.
- Dr. Wang provided a personal cheque for US$54,000 and signed an indemnity.
- The respondent later released the remaining US$6,000 to Dr. Wang.
- The respondent wrote letters stating that the US$60,000 was still being held.
- The cheques provided by Dr. Wang were not banked in.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Tham Kok Leong Thomas, OS 1312/2005, NM 84/2005, [2005] SGHC 231
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent admitted as an advocate and solicitor | |
| Taevivat deposits US$60,000 with the law firm | |
| Respondent releases US$54,000 to Dr Wang | |
| Tang & Tan requested Mr. Thomas Tham not to release the sum of US$60,000.00 | |
| Law firm confirms they will hold the deposit of US$60,000 | |
| Tang & Tan requested confirmation that US$60,000.00 is still being held as stakeholders | |
| Tang & Tan wrote to remind the respondent about the request and to seek his confirmation that the said sum of money had been deposited into the respondent’s client’s account | |
| Law firm asks whether the letter of credit had been verified and authenticated | |
| Tang & Tan wrote to the respondent noting that their request for confirmation about the US$60,000 was still not met | |
| Law firm confirms they are still holding the said sum pending the outcome between respective clients | |
| Remaining US$6,000 released by the respondent to Dr Wang | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Undertaking
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent breached his undertaking as a stakeholder by releasing funds prematurely and substituting the security without authorization.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to act impartially
- Premature release of funds
- Substitution of security without authorization
- Misleading Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent made misleading statements to the complainant and his solicitors regarding the status of the deposited funds.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of funds being intact
- Deception of third parties
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court determined that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct, specifically conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and grossly improper conduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
- Grossly improper conduct
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Stakeholder Duty
- Professional Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Conduct
- Stakeholder Agreements
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Hun Seang v Yeoh Oon Teik | N/A | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stakeholder owes a duty not only to his client but to third parties as well and has a duty to hold on to money deposited with him in accordance with what has been agreed between the stakeholder and the parties. |
| United Mining and Finance Corporation, Limited v Becher | N/A | Yes | [1910] 2 KB 296 | N/A | Cited to explain that when a solicitor, in the course of business which he is conducting for clients with third parties in the way of his profession, gives an undertaking to those third parties incidental to those negotiations, that undertaking is given in his capacity as a solicitor. |
| Re Lim Kiap Khee | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 616 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is of the utmost importance that a solicitor should abide by the undertaking he formally gives and that to deliberately breach an undertaking solemnly given would seriously undermine the integrity of the profession and would bring it into disrepute. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 361 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor under s 83(2)(h) of the LPA is not confined to misconduct in the solicitor’s professional capacity. |
| Re Marshall David | N/A | Yes | [1972–1974] SLR 132 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a solicitor was suspended for breaching an undertaking. |
| Re Seow Francis T | N/A | Yes | [1972–1974] SLR 469 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a solicitor was suspended for breaching an undertaking. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 3 of the Legal Profession Act (Solicitor’s Account) Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 83(5) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 98(5) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Stakeholder
- Undertaking
- Letter of Credit
- Professional Misconduct
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Solicitor's Duty
- Misleading Statements
- Disciplinary Proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Show cause action
- Stakeholder
- Undertaking
- Misleading statements
- Grossly improper conduct
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Solicitor's duties | 80 |
| Stakeholder Duties | 75 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 70 |
| Breach of Undertaking | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Guarantee | 50 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Solicitor's Undertaking
- Stakeholder Agreements