Law Society of Singapore v Manjit Singh: Professional Misconduct and Sanctions
The Law Society of Singapore applied for sanctions against Manjit Singh and Sree Govind Menon, partners at M/s Manjit Govind & Partners, for professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. The charges stemmed from the respondents' handling of $1.8 million paid by a client, Ms. Adeline Bernadette Rankine, to their wives. The Disciplinary Tribunal found cause for disciplinary action, and the Court of Three Judges upheld this finding, ordering both respondents to be struck off the roll.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Respondents struck off the roll.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society sought sanctions against Manjit Singh and Sree Govind Menon for professional misconduct involving client funds. The Court ordered both to be struck off the roll.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Judgment for Applicant | Won | Pateloo Eruthiyanathan Ashokan |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh | Respondent | Individual | Struck off the roll | Lost | |
| Sree Govind Menon | Respondent | Individual | Struck off the roll | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Pateloo Eruthiyanathan Ashokan | KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- Ms. Rankine paid $1.8m to the respondents' wives.
- The respondents claimed the $1.8m was a gift.
- Ms. Rankine claimed the $1.8m was for safekeeping and future legal fees.
- The respondents refused to return the $1.8m when requested.
- The 1st Respondent misused a $20,000 cashier's order from Ms. Rankine.
- The 2nd Respondent told Ms. Rankine to lie to her banker.
5. Formal Citations
- The Law Society of Singapore v Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another, Originating Summons No 461 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 95
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| The 1st Respondent was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. | |
| The 2nd Respondent was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. | |
| Ms Rankine's relationship with Mr Amin ended. | |
| Starboard Consultants Pte Ltd lodged a caveat against the Joan Road property. | |
| The caveat was discharged. | |
| Ms Rankine issued two cheques to the wives of the Respondents, totaling $1.8m. | |
| Ms Rankine instructed Eldan Law LLP to take over the proceedings. | |
| Eldan Law LLP raised the matter of the two cheques paid to the Respondents’ wives and asked for an account of the monies. | |
| Ms Rankine wrote to the Respondents requesting the return of the $1.8m. | |
| Ms Rankine lodged a complaint against the Respondents with the Law Society. | |
| Engelin Teh Practice LLC issued letters of demand to the Respondents and their wives for the return of the $1.8m. | |
| Chan Sek Keong appointed a disciplinary tribunal. | |
| The Respondents filed Originating Summons No 443 of 2012 seeking leave to apply for judicial review of Chan CJ’s decision. | |
| The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review. | |
| The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court’s decision. | |
| A settlement was reached between Ms Rankine and the Respondents in relation to their respective civil claims against each other. | |
| The Tribunal was informed by the Law Society to proceed with the hearing of the charges brought against the Respondents in spite of the Withdrawal Letter. | |
| The Tribunal allowed the Law Society’s application to bring an additional charge against the 1st Respondent. | |
| The Tribunal was informed that the Respondents had filed Originating Summons No 107 of 2013 seeking leave to apply for judicial review of Sundaresh Menon CJ’s decision. | |
| The High Court dismissed the Respondents’ application for judicial review. | |
| The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court’s decision. | |
| The Respondents have ceased to practise, having not taken out the required practising certificates. | |
| The Tribunal issued its report, finding that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 83(2)(h) of the Act against the Respondents. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents' conduct constituted professional misconduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Misuse of client funds
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Dishonest conduct
- Bias of Tribunal
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of bias on the part of the Tribunal.
- Category: Procedural
- Due Process
- Outcome: The court found no impropriety or irregularity with the proceedings conducted by the Tribunal.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Striking off the roll
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Professional Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 360 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court does not lightly interfere with findings of fact by a lower court or a disciplinary committee unless their conclusions are clearly against the weight of evidence. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 844 | Singapore | Cited regarding the allegation that the Tribunal treated the respondents as guilty until proven innocent. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v AG | High Court | No | [2013] 2 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of the Respondents’ application for judicial review. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v AG | Court of Appeal | No | [2013] 4 SLR 483 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of the appeal against the High Court’s decision. |
| Re A Solicitor | Queen's Bench | No | [1975] QB 475 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to Rule 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 477 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Disciplinary Tribunal's power to prefer fresh charges under s 89(4) of the Act. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 466 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 83(2)(h) is a catch-all provision and the standard of judgment to be applied is fixed by the court. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 966 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the standard of judgment to be applied is fixed by the court and is not the standard of peer judgment. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the focus of s 83(2)(h) is to ensure that the conduct of the solicitor concerned meets the high levels of professionalism expected of practising lawyers. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 68 | Singapore | Cited for the three functions of disciplinary action under s 83 of the Act. |
| Bolton v Law Society | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1994] 2 All ER 486 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 266 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in cases of proven dishonesty, a solicitor will invariably be struck off the roll. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian Sidambaram | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 674 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sanction must be commensurate with the degree of culpability of the solicitor and the extent to which public confidence has been shaken. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the relevant sentencing principles applicable to professional misconduct. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| r 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules) (Cap 161, r 1, 2010 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 89(4) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 83(8)(a) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Professional misconduct
- Disciplinary tribunal
- Safekeeping
- Legal fees
- Cashier's order
- Breach of trust
- Advocate and solicitor
- Legal Profession Act
- Unbefitting conduct
- Dishonesty
15.2 Keywords
- Professional misconduct
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Client funds
- Singapore
- Law Society
16. Subjects
- Professional Responsibility
- Legal Ethics
- Disciplinary Proceedings
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Misconduct
- Regulatory Law