Law Society v Dhanwant Singh: Disciplinary Proceedings for Breach of Conveyancing Rules
In Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh, the Court of Three Judges addressed disciplinary proceedings against Dhanwant Singh, a solicitor, for breaching the Conveyancing and Law of Property (Conveyancing) Rules 2011 by depositing $100,000 of conveyancing monies into his firm’s client account instead of the conveyancing account. The Law Society of Singapore applied for sanctions under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act. The court affirmed the Disciplinary Tribunal’s finding of liability and imposed a $50,000 fine on the Respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Fine of $50,000 imposed on the Respondent
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society charged Dhanwant Singh for breaching Conveyancing Rules by depositing conveyancing monies into a client account. The court imposed a $50,000 fine.
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 the Applicant | Won | |
| Dhanwant Singh | Respondent | Individual | Fine Imposed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Respondent was representing the sellers of a property.
- RDW International Pte Ltd was interested in purchasing the property and transferred $100,000 to the Respondent’s firm.
- The Respondent deposited the $100,000 into his firm’s client account instead of the conveyancing account.
- The Respondent disbursed the $100,000 to his clients, the Vendors.
- The Vendors had ongoing bankruptcy applications against them, which the Complainant was never informed about.
- The Complainant sought to have the monies placed into the conveyancing account pending completion or returned to it.
- The Respondent refused to place the monies into the conveyancing account.
- The purchase did not go through, and the Vendors kept the $100,000 and have since been adjudged bankrupts.
- Neither the Respondent nor the Vendors had made any restitution to the Complainant.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh, Originating Summons No 4 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 290
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Conveyancing and Law of Property (Conveyancing) Rules 2011 enacted | |
| Complainant offered to purchase the Property for $5.8m | |
| Vendors signed the Initial Option | |
| Revised Option drafted | |
| Complainant paid $58,000 directly to Mr Senthil of the Vendors | |
| Revised Option signed by the Vendors | |
| Complainant requested an extension of time to exercise the Revised Option | |
| MCP sent the Respondent a request to extend the Revised Option’s expiry date to 31 May 2017 | |
| Complainant paid $100,000 to the client account of the Respondent’s firm | |
| The $100,000 was placed in the client account of the Respondent’s firm | |
| Respondent disbursed the $100,000 to the Vendors | |
| MCP emailed the Respondent to indicate that the Complainant would be exercising the Option on that day | |
| Mr. Chiong of MCP called Mr. Lim to inform him that one of the Vendors was facing bankruptcy proceedings | |
| MCP discharged as counsel for Complainant | |
| EPLC wrote to the Respondent to request that the $100,000 be placed in his firm’s conveyancing account | |
| EPLC wrote to the Respondent repeatedly to request that the $100,000 be placed in his firm’s conveyancing account | |
| Mr Lim filed a complaint with the Law Society against the Respondent | |
| The Law Society filed its case against the Respondent | |
| The Respondent filed his Defence | |
| The Respondent filed his AEIC | |
| Hearing. Court affirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Tribunal that the Respondent’s liability on both the charges had been established and that cause of sufficient gravity had been shown | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Conveyancing Rules
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent had breached the Conveyancing Rules and the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules by failing to deposit conveyancing monies into the designated account.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to deposit conveyancing money into conveyancing account
- Disbursing conveyancing money without proper authorization
- Interpretation of Conveyancing Rules
- Outcome: The court held that the $100,000 was conveyancing money under the Conveyancing Rules, regardless of whether a formal sale and purchase agreement was in place.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of conveyancing money
- Obligation to hold conveyancing monies as stakeholder
- Due Cause for Sanctions
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent’s breach was of sufficient gravity to warrant sanctions under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of gravity of breach
- Appropriateness of sanctions
8. Remedies Sought
- Sanctions under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Conveyancing Rules
- Improper practice as an advocate and solicitor
- Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 320 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that breaches of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules are treated sternly and that liability for breaches is strict, if not absolute. |
| Kong Hoo (Pte) Ltd and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1131 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Aqua Art Pte Ltd v Goodman Development (S) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [2011] 2 SLR 865 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that an option to purchase and the subsequent sale and purchase agreement were two separate contracts. |
| Teo Siew Peng v Guok Sing Ong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 699 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that an option to purchase land is a contract, grant or disposition of property. |
| Re 41B Lorong 17 Geylang, Singapore 388564 | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 729 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that an option to purchase and a sale and purchase agreement are different contracts. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ethical rules must be read in light of their object and purpose. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tay Eng Kwee Edwin | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 171 | Singapore | Cited for the primary purpose of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules is preventive, and was to protect first and foremost the public against any unauthorised use of clients’ money held by solicitors. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1095 | Singapore | Cited for the legislative raison d’être of the Conveyancing Rules is to provide the public with the additional safeguard of requiring solicitors to hold conveyancing monies in conveyancing accounts as stakeholders. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Troy Yeo Siew Chye | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2018] SGDT 4 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that lawyers must receive and hold conveyancing money in a special conveyancing account opened with designated appointed banks, and not their normal client accounts. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Siew Chye Troy | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision in The Law Society of Singapore v Troy Yeo Siew Chye. |
| MCH International Pte Ltd and others v YG Group Pte Ltd and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 68 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a rigid and formalistic approach to interpretation leads to an entirely commercially insensible result. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yong Heng Yew | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 22 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of strict liability. |
| Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 150 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mere bona fide belief is insufficient to evade liability under a strict liability provision. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 859 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality of the circumstances, and the Respondent’s conduct, were sufficiently serious so as to warrant the imposition of sanctions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1261 | Singapore | Cited for the test of misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 221 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disciplinary proceedings against an advocate and solicitor were akin to criminal proceedings, particularly where the allegations were of a serious nature. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the moral censure and professional disapprobation cast upon the solicitor would impact adversely upon his reputation as well as his livelihood. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Respondent’s conduct was not, strictly speaking, an aggravating factor, but rather was the lack of a mitigating factor. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that no restitution had been undertaken. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale for according weight to the length of time that an offender has stayed cleaned. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 174 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is another matter for a prosecuting authority to rely on pending proceedings for the purposes of sentencing as the subject has yet to be convicted of those fresh charges. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nathan Edmund | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 905 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the harm to the public confidence in the integrity and reliability of the legal profession is correspondingly higher given the seniority of the lawyer in question. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1184 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate quantum of the fine. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng John | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate quantum of the fine. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 81 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentencing guidelines were not meant to yield mathematically perfect points for a sentencing court to arrive at. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 348 | Singapore | Cited to draw the court’s attention to concluded or pending disciplinary proceedings that a solicitor had faced, or was currently facing. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh | Court of Three Judges | No | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited as a prior antecedent of the Respondent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Conveyancing and Law of Property (Conveyancing) Rules 2011 (GN No S 391/2011) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) s 77(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1970 Rev Ed) s 92(d) | Singapore |
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) s 58(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conveyancing money
- Conveyancing account
- Client account
- Option to purchase
- Sale and purchase agreement
- Stakeholder
- Disbursement Agreement
- Consideration Agreement
- Two-party authorisation
15.2 Keywords
- Conveyancing
- Solicitor
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Conduct
- Breach
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Conveyancing Law
- Professional Misconduct
- Regulatory Compliance