Law Society v. Udeh Kumar: Disciplinary Proceedings for Breach of Professional Conduct

In Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju, the Court of Three Judges heard applications by the Law Society of Singapore against Udeh Kumar, an advocate and solicitor, for breaches of the Legal Profession Act and Professional Conduct Rules. The charges included failing to avoid unnecessary adjournments, misleading the court, and advising a client to obtain a medical certificate under false pretenses. The Court found Udeh Kumar guilty of all 11 charges and ordered him to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Respondent ordered to be 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

Udeh Kumar, an advocate and solicitor, faced disciplinary proceedings for breaches of professional conduct, including misleading the court and failing to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The Court ordered him to be struck off the roll.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication GrantedWon
UDEH KUMAR S/O SETHURAJURespondentIndividualStruck off the roll of advocates and solicitorsLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Siraj OmarPremier Law LLC
Vijai ParwaniParwani Law LLC
Alexander LeePremier Law LLC
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Jason LimStraits Law Practice LLC
B UthayachanranEssex LLC

4. Facts

  1. Udeh Kumar was a senior practitioner called as an advocate and solicitor on 16 March 1988.
  2. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against Udeh Kumar due to complaints from the Attorney-General and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts.
  3. Udeh Kumar was found to have been late for or absent from hearings, necessitating adjournments.
  4. Udeh Kumar made false statements to the court regarding the availability of parties for hearings.
  5. Udeh Kumar advised a client to obtain a medical certificate under false pretenses to excuse his absence from court.
  6. Udeh Kumar had previously committed similar disciplinary offences of being late for or absent from court hearings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matter, Originating Summons Nos 5 of 2016 and 1 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 141

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Udeh Kumar called as an advocate and solicitor.
Udeh Kumar practiced at S. K. Kumar Law Practice LLP.
Hearing of Summons No 4537 of 2014 adjourned.
Summons No 4537 of 2014 dismissed.
Pre-Trial Conference held.
Client failed to attend court mention; warrant of arrest issued.
Medical memorandum issued for client.
Hearing of Originating Summons No 576 of 2014 and appeal adjourned.
Client filed notice of appeal in person.
Hearing adjourned.
AGC informed Udeh Kumar it would not agree to further adjournment of OS 576.
Udeh Kumar requested a further two-week adjournment.
Client arrested for another matter.
Client charged in court for another matter.
AGC learned of adjournment request.
AGC wrote to court stating consent had not been sought for adjournment.
Originating Summons No 576 of 2014 withdrawn; Udeh Kumar ordered to pay costs personally.
Further mention in relation to other matter.
Udeh Kumar requested appeal be vacated and re-fixed.
Complaint by the Attorney-General made pursuant to s 85(3)(b) of the LPA.
Council of the Law Society imposed a penalty of $15,000 on the Respondent.
Complaint by the Presiding Judge of the State Courts made.
Prisons replied to AGC.
Mention before the State Courts for the purpose of taking a plea from a client of the Respondent.
Complaint by the Attorney-General supplemented with further information.
Council of the Law Society imposed a fine of $2,000 on the Respondent.
Udeh Kumar gave a solicitor’s undertaking.
Solicitor's undertaking commenced.
Registry sought views of parties as to whether either of them had any objections to Tay Yong Kwang JA being part of the panel hearing the matter.
Hearing Date
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
    • Outcome: The Court found that the Respondent had breached the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to avoid unnecessary adjournments
      • Misleading the court
      • Advising a client to obtain a medical certificate under false pretenses
  2. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The Court found that the minute sheets were admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Appropriate Sanction for Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The Court ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking off the roll of advocates and solicitors
  2. Suspension from practice
  3. Penalty
  4. Censure

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession Act
  • Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Professional Responsibility

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o SethurajuDisciplinary TribunalYes[2016] SGDT 6SingaporeDecision of the Disciplinary Tribunal regarding the charges in C3J/OS 5/2016.
The Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o SethurajuDisciplinary TribunalYes[2016] SGDT 12SingaporeDecision of the Disciplinary Tribunal regarding the charges in C3J/OS 1/2017.
Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the court's discretion under O 2 of the Rules of Court to cure non-compliance.
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 390SingaporeCited for the principle that a finding under s 83(2) of the LPA is necessary but not sufficient for a finding of 'due cause'.
Public Trustee and another v By Products Traders Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 449SingaporeCited for the definition of deceiving or misleading the Court, including passive concealment of material facts.
Derry v PeekHouse of LordsYes(1889) 14 App Cas 337EnglandCited for the test to establish fraudulent misrepresentation.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the duty of an advocate and solicitor not to mislead the court.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi AbleHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 61SingaporeCited for the principle that recklessness can amount to subjective dishonesty.
Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee YeanCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 560SingaporeCited for the principle that dishonesty, even of a technical nature, will almost invariably lead to striking off.
Bolton v Law SocietyEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[1994] 1 WLR 512England and WalesCited for the principles on striking off solicitors for dishonesty or lack of integrity.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian RickHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 68SingaporeCited for the principle that conviction of a criminal offence implying a defect of character renders one unfit for the profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Ong LilianHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 187SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for theft.
Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein LawrenceHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 23SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for theft.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Caleb Charles JamesHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 256SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for criminal breach of trust.
Law Society of Singapore v Loh Wai Mun DanielHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 261SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for criminal breach of trust.
Law Society of Singapore v Nathan EdmundHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 905SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for attempted cheating.
Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant SinghHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for abetting a client to avoid attending court by producing false medical certificates.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited for the sentencing principles in disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng ChristopherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 877SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will view misconduct in totality when determining the appropriate sentence.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh DixonCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 348SingaporeCited for the principle that a previous similar disciplinary offence is a significant aggravating factor.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o SethurajuHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 875SingaporeCited for a previous disciplinary offence of failing to communicate with a client.
The Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar S/O SethurajuDisciplinary TribunalYes[2014] SGDT 9SingaporeCited for a previous disciplinary offence involving non-attendance in court.
Law Society of Singapore v Lim Yee KaiHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 30SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for misusing client funds.
Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 753SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an advocate and solicitor was struck off for fraudulently concealing material facts from the court.
Re Ram GoswamiHigh CourtYes[1988] 2 SLR(R) 183SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the sentence imposed by the court was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances and should not be followed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Professional misconduct
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Duty of candour
  • Officer of the court
  • Fraudulent conduct
  • Due cause
  • Adjournment
  • Misleading the court
  • Medical certificate
  • Solicitor's undertaking

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Professional Conduct
  • Singapore
  • Court of Three Judges
  • Advocate and Solicitor
  • Misleading Court
  • Adjournments
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Conduct Rules

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Professional Conduct Rules90
Disciplinary Proceedings90
Professional Ethics85
Professional Misconduct80
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility80
Breach of Solicitors' Accounts Rules60

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Discipline
  • Regulatory Law