Law Society v. Latimer: Disciplinary Proceedings for Grossly Improper Conduct
The Law Society of Singapore brought an application against Ezekiel Peter Latimer, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, for disciplinary proceedings. The Court of Three Judges, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, and Quentin Loh J, found Latimer guilty of grossly improper conduct under the Legal Profession Act. The court imposed a two-year suspension to run consecutively with an existing three-year suspension.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Respondent suspended from practice for two years, to run consecutively with existing suspension.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society of Singapore brought disciplinary proceedings against Ezekiel Peter Latimer for grossly improper conduct. The court imposed a two-year suspension, to run consecutively with a prior suspension.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Ezekiel Peter Latimer | Respondent | Individual | Suspension Imposed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lin Weiqi Wendy | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The respondent failed to attend a hearing on 11 April 2017.
- The respondent did not make arrangements for an adjournment.
- The respondent took no steps to remedy the consequences of his absence.
- The respondent ignored persistent attempts by his client to contact him.
- The respondent had been involved in a separate incident of misconduct.
- The respondent was found to have placed himself in a position of conflict of interest.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer, Originating Summons No 9 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing not attended by respondent | |
| Three-year suspension took effect | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Outcome: The court found the respondent's conduct to constitute grossly improper conduct under the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 4 SLR 1369
- [2013] SGHC 5
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 905
- [2019] 4 SLR 1427
- [2018] 4 SLR 859
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Professional Conduct
- Grossly Improper Conduct
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Disciplinary Actions
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1369 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the conduct must be sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that cases involving grossly improper conduct without dishonesty generally attract a monetary penalty, but aggravating factors may justify more severe sanctions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nathan Edmund | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 905 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the seniority of an advocate and solicitor should be taken into account when determining the length of suspension. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 1427 | Singapore | Cited regarding a separate incident of misconduct where the respondent was found to have placed himself in a position of conflict of interest. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 859 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no justification for two terms of suspension to run concurrently where the respondent’s earlier convictions relate to an entirely different set of offences that occurred at a different time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sections 94(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Section 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Suspension
- Legal Profession Act
- Conflict of Interest
15.2 Keywords
- Disciplinary
- Law Society
- Legal Profession
- Singapore
- Suspension
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 90 |
| Professional conduct | 90 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility