Nathan Edmund v Law Society: Application for Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
Nathan Edmund applied to the High Court of Singapore for reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors after being struck off in 1998. The Law Society of Singapore did not oppose the application but proposed conditions for reinstatement. The Attorney-General's Chambers also did not oppose the application. The court, after considering the circumstances, allowed the application subject to the conditions proposed by the Law Society.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Edmund Nathan, struck off in 1998 for attempted cheating, applied for reinstatement to the Roll. The High Court allowed the application, subject to conditions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan Edmund | Applicant | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | Ang Cheng Hock, Rajan Sanjiv Kumar, Tan Kai Liang |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | N Sreenivasan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Rajan Sanjiv Kumar | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Tan Kai Liang | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Denise Wong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was struck off the Roll in 1998 for attempted cheating.
- The Applicant was convicted of attempted cheating under s 420, read with s 34 and s 511 of the Penal Code.
- The Applicant drafted an agreement with a false sale price to obtain a higher housing loan for a client.
- The Applicant worked as a paralegal at TRC for several years prior to the application.
- The Law Society did not oppose the application but proposed conditions for reinstatement.
- The Attorney-General did not oppose the application.
- The Applicant had a number of regulatory offences between 1998 and 2009.
5. Formal Citations
- Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 116 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 232
- Nathan Edmund v Public Prosecutor, , [1997] 2 SLR(R) 926
- Edmund Nathan v PP, , [1997] 3 SLR 783
- Law Society of Singapore v Edmund Nathan, , [1998] 3 SLR 414
- Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore, , [2007] 3 SLR(R) 704
- Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore, , [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1018
- Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam v Law Society of Singapore, , [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1
- Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore, , [2007] 4 SLR(R) 641
- Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore, , [2011] 1 SLR(R) 645
- Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh, , [2001] 2 SLR(R) 494
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant retained by Fernandez to purchase an apartment. | |
| Registrar of the Supreme Court filed a complaint to the Law Society. | |
| Council of the Law Society adopted the Inquiry Committee's recommendation. | |
| Applicant convicted of attempted cheating. | |
| Applicant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed. | |
| Court of Three Judges ordered the Applicant to be struck off the Roll. | |
| Applicant struck off the Roll. | |
| Applicant approached Mr Chelva Retnam Rajah SC of TRC to work as a paralegal. | |
| Application for permission to employ the applicant as a paralegal was filed. | |
| Permission to employ the applicant as a paralegal was granted. | |
| Applicant commenced work at TRC. | |
| Applicant made an application for reinstatement (Originating Summons No 851 of 2010). | |
| Applicant withdrew application made in Originating Summons No 851 of 2010. | |
| Applicant made an application for reinstatement (Originating Summons No 116 of 2012). | |
| High Court allowed the application for reinstatement. |
7. Legal Issues
- Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
- Outcome: The court allowed the application for reinstatement, subject to conditions.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Reinstatement
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Responsibility
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the three crucial factors the court will look at when considering a replacement application. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant considers a replacement application. |
| Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reinstatement is the exception and not the rule. |
| Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 641 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reinstatement to the Roll is contingent upon nothing less than full rehabilitation. |
| Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR(R) 645 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one of the best ways to gauge whether a person who had previously done wrong has reformed is to see how he has conducted himself post-striking out, particularly in employment where he was entrusted with responsibilities. |
| Nathan Edmund v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 926 | Singapore | Cited for the mitigating factors considered when dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction for the criminal charge. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Edmund Nathan | Court of Three Judges of the Supreme Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited for the reasons the Court of Three Judges decided to strike off the Applicant from the Roll. |
| Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must be every bit as jealous of the honour of those admitted to the Singapore legal profession as a man is of his own reputation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 511 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 86 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 94A(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 83 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 78(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 102 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Reinstatement
- Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
- Disbarment
- Attempted Cheating
- Paralegal
- Rehabilitation
- Public Interest
- Regulatory Offences
15.2 Keywords
- Reinstatement
- Law Society
- Singapore
- Solicitor
- Advocate
- Legal Profession Act
- Attempted Cheating
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Ethics
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Reinstatement to Roll