Law Society v Seow Theng Beng: Disciplinary Proceedings for Misconduct Against Employees

The Law Society of Singapore applied for sanctions against Seow Theng Beng Samuel before the Court of Three Judges for misconduct against his employees. The disciplinary tribunal found cause for disciplinary action. The court found due cause and ordered Seow to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors, elaborating on considerations for striking off a legal practitioner.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Respondent struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Law Society sought sanctions against Seow Theng Beng for misconduct against employees. The court ordered Seow to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardJudgment for ApplicantWon
Seow Theng Beng SamuelRespondentIndividualRespondent struck off the rollLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Dhillon Dinesh SinghAllen & Gledhill LLP
Loong Tse ChuanAllen & Gledhill LLP
Alisa Toh Qian WenAllen & Gledhill LLP
Pereira Edmond AvethasEdmond Pereira Law Corporation
Cheung Shu Jia JessicaEdmond Pereira Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Respondent threw files and boxes at Ms. Kang and screamed at her.
  2. Respondent threw metal staplers at Ms. Kang on multiple occasions.
  3. Respondent shouted at Ms. Kang and advanced aggressively, causing her to fall.
  4. Respondent repeatedly threw his wallet at Ms. Kang and threatened to kill her with a knife.
  5. Respondent jabbed Ms. Kang’s forehead and pushed files against her chest.
  6. Respondent grabbed Ms. Kong, pushed her against a table, slapped her, jabbed her forehead, and pushed her.
  7. Respondent pushed Ms. Tan with force, causing her to fall.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel, Originating Summons No 4 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 112

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent threw files and boxes at Ms. Kang and screamed at her.
Respondent threw a metal stapler at Ms. Kang.
Respondent threw a metal stapler at Ms. Kang.
Respondent shouted at Ms. Kang, advancing aggressively, causing her to fall.
Respondent repeatedly threw his wallet at Ms. Kang and threatened to kill her with a knife.
Respondent jabbed Ms. Kang’s forehead and pushed files against her chest.
Respondent grabbed Ms. Kong, pushed her against a table, slapped her, jabbed her forehead, and pushed her.
Respondent pushed Ms. Tan with force, causing her to fall.
Disciplinary tribunal hearing began.
Respondent pleaded guilty to the remaining charges.
Disciplinary tribunal issued its report.
Respondent pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
Hearing of the parties.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent's conduct constituted misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abusive language
      • Unruly behavior
      • Intemperate conduct
      • Boorish conduct
      • Lack of self-control
  2. Appropriate Sanction for Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Striking off the roll
      • Suspension from practice
      • Penalty
      • Censure

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking off the roll
  2. Suspension from practice
  3. Penalty
  4. Censure

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession Act
  • Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Professional Conduct

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1261SingaporeCited for the definition of 'due cause' under sections 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 1187SingaporeCited for the principle that abusive language and unruly behavior may constitute misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has a duty to consider psychiatric conditions that diminish the personal culpability of the solicitor.
Law Society of Singapore v Ismail bin AtanHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 746SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor who falls below the required standards of integrity, probity, and trustworthiness and brings grave dishonor to the profession will be liable to be struck off.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matterHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 1369SingaporeCited for guidance on the circumstances in which striking off would be an appropriate penalty in respect of misconduct involving dishonesty.
Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon YangHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1068SingaporeCited for guidance on the circumstances in which striking off would be an appropriate penalty in respect of misconduct involving dishonesty.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 84SingaporeCited for guidance on the circumstances in which striking off would be an appropriate penalty in respect of misconduct involving dishonesty.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter LatimerHigh CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 1427SingaporeCited for guidance on the circumstances in which striking off would be an appropriate penalty in respect of conflicts of interest.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor who falls below the required standards of integrity, probity, and trustworthiness would be struck off the roll of solicitors if his lapse indicates a lack of necessary character and trustworthiness.
Law Society of Singapore v Thirumurthy Ayernaar PambayanHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 79SingaporeCited for guidance on the circumstances in which striking off would be an appropriate penalty in respect of misconduct involving dishonesty.
Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant SinghHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 736SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should compare the case with precedents to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors.
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 390SingaporeCited to argue that the respondent should be punished with only a fine of $40,000 and censure, but the court found the case irrelevant.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 209SingaporeCited as an example of a case where volatility or lack of self-control detracting from the ability to discharge one’s professional functions was considered a character defect.
The Law Society of Singapore v Looi Wan HuiDisciplinary TribunalYes[2014] SGDT 3SingaporeCited to argue that the respondent should be punished with only a fine of $40,000 and censure, but the court found the case irrelevant.
The Law Society of Singapore v Leonard Anthony NettoSupreme CourtYes[2005] SGDSC 14SingaporeCited to argue that the respondent should be punished with only a fine of $40,000 and censure, but the court found the case irrelevant.
Re Han Ngiap JuanHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 135SingaporeCited for the principle that conduct may be grossly improper notwithstanding that there is no dishonesty, fraud or deceit.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 466SingaporeCited for the principle that the standard of 'unbefitting conduct' is less strict, and a solicitor only needs to be shown to have been guilty of such conduct as would render him unfit to remain as a member of an honourable profession.
Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of AccountantsHigh CourtYes[1989] 2 SLR(R) 633SingaporeCited for the principle that it may be asked whether reasonable people, on hearing what the solicitor had done, would have said without hesitation that as a solicitor he should not have done it.
Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 258SingaporeCited to show that the respondent sought an order that the hearing of OS 4 be held in abeyance, pending the completion of the Newton hearing, but the application was dismissed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (2010 Rev Ed) r 8(3)(b)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(1)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b)(i)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(h)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 71Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 93(1)(c)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 94(1)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 98(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Misconduct
  • Disciplinary action
  • Striking off
  • Advocate and solicitor
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Conduct
  • Integrity
  • Probity
  • Trustworthiness
  • Volatility
  • Self-control

15.2 Keywords

  • misconduct
  • legal profession
  • disciplinary
  • striking off
  • regulatory

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings95
Legal Profession Act90
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility85
Professional Misconduct75

16. Subjects

  • Regulatory Law
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Disciplinary Proceedings