Law Society of Singapore v. Hanam: Disciplinary Proceedings for Breach of Professional Conduct

In Law Society of Singapore v. Hanam, the Court of Three Judges addressed an application by the Law Society of Singapore for sanctions against Mr. Andrew John Hanam under the Legal Profession Act for breaches of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015. The charges stemmed from Mr. Hanam's handling of a dispute involving P&P Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd and Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd. The Disciplinary Tribunal found Mr. Hanam guilty of failing to properly advise his client and failing to evaluate alternative dispute resolution options. The court found due cause for disciplinary action and ordered Mr. Hanam's suspension for 9 months.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Due cause has been shown for Mr Hanam to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the LPA and order that he be suspended for a period of 9 months.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Law Society sought sanctions against Hanam for breaching professional conduct rules in handling a dispute over unpaid invoices. The court suspended Hanam for 9 months.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication AllowedWon
Hanam, Andrew JohnRespondentIndividualSanctionedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Belinda Ang Saw EanJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Shobna ChandranTan Rajah & Cheah
Ng Jie Zhen AmyTan Rajah & Cheah
Tan PhoebeTan Rajah & Cheah
Thaddaeus Aaron Tan Yong ZhongTan Rajah & Cheah
Andrew John HanamAndrew LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Hanam represented P&P in a dispute involving unpaid invoices arising from two subcontracts.
  2. Mr. Hanam did not keep attendance notes or timesheets of his meetings and discussions with Mr. Pugazendhi.
  3. P&P commenced Suit 1255 against Kori for a claim of $376,344.93 under the Manpower Subcontract and $893,273.66 under the Steel Fabrication Subcontract.
  4. Kori agreed to pay $236,187.75 to P&P as settlement for the Manpower Subcontract claim in Suit 1255.
  5. P&P filed Suit 1167 against Kori for payment of amounts due under the Manpower Subcontract in the sum of $342,821.05.
  6. Mr. Pugazendhi lodged a complaint against Mr. Hanam with the Law Society, claiming overcharging and acting without knowledge or agreement.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Hanam, Andrew John, Originating Application No 5 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 132
  2. The Law Society of Singapore v Andrew John Hanam, , [2022] SGDT 12

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Hanam was admitted to the roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore
Mr. Hanam was appointed by Mr. Pugazendhi to represent P&P in its dispute with Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd
P&P commenced Suit 1255 against Kori
First letter of demand to Kori seeking $371,720.14
Kori filed SUM 431 against P&P to compel disclosure of documents
Mr. Hanam informed Mr. Pugazendhi that P&P would be objecting to SUM 431
P&P filed RA 44
Trial of Suit 1255 commenced
Suit 1255 Settlement reached regarding P&P’s claim under the Manpower Subcontract and one of Kori’s counterclaims
P&P unsuccessfully sought voluntary production of documents from Taisei
Kori's lawyers wrote to Mr Hanam stating that Kori had carried out a “certification” of the claim amount and confirmed that Kori was agreeable to pay an amount of $342,821.05
Mr. Hanam sent P&P’s revised invoice dated 4 November 2017 for the amount of $342,821.05 and requested payment by 5 December 2017
Kori maintained that it would only make payment upon resolution of Suit 1255
P&P filed SUM 5237 for third-party discovery against Taisei Corporation
P&P unsuccessfully applied for leave in SUM 5616 to call four additional witnesses
P&P filed Suit 1167 against Kori
P&P sought summary judgment on 10 January 2018 by way of HC/SUM 170/2018
HC/SUM 170/2018 was dismissed
P&P applied in SUM 1394 for judgment on the Suit 1255 Settlement based on an admission of fact
Mr. Hanam agreed on behalf of P&P to pay Taisei the sum of $1,513.70 for the costs incurred by Taisei in obtaining the garnishee order
SUM 1394 was dismissed with costs of $3,700 ordered against P&P
P&P sued on the Suit 1255 Settlement and filed DC 1043 for payment of $236,187.75
P&P amended its Statement of Claim to include a claim for the sum of $371,720.14
P&P issued an OTS to Kori
Kori issued an offer to settle to P&P
The High Court found largely in favour of P&P in Suit 1255
Kori made payment of the agreed sum under the Suit 1255 Settlement
The High Court found in favour of P&P and ordered Kori to pay P&P the sum of $416,343.69 in Suit 1167
Kori issued a second OTS
The District Court found against P&P in DC 1043
Mr. Pugazendhi lodged a complaint against Mr. Hanam with the Law Society
The Inquiry Committee was constituted to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Hanam
The Inquiry Committee recommended that a formal investigation be conducted by a disciplinary tribunal
The Law Society filed its Statement of Case
The DT was constituted to hear and investigate the complaint referred to it by the Inquiry Committee
Law Society filed an application to amend its Statement of Case
The Statement of Case (Amendment No 1) (“SOC1”) was filed
Mr. Hanam informed the DT that he accepted that the Law Society could introduce new charges under s 89(4) of the LPA
Mr. Hanam filed an amended defence, Defence (Amendment No 1) (“Defence”), denying the five additional charges
The affidavits of evidence-in-chief (“AEICs”) of the Law Society and Mr. Hanam were exchanged
The DT hearing was conducted between 17 August 2021 and 20 August 2021
The Law Society applied to amend SOC1
Oral hearing
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Hanam breached the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and that due cause existed for disciplinary action.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to properly advise client
      • Failure to evaluate alternative dispute resolution processes
      • Acting without client's authority
  2. Improper Conduct or Practice
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Hanam's conduct amounted to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to advise on legal fees
      • Failure to evaluate the expense or risk of litigation
      • Failure to advise on alternative dispute resolution

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Action
  2. Suspension
  3. Monetary Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Professional Responsibility

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaSingapore Court of AppealYes[2022] 3 SLR 1417SingaporeCited by the Law Society as a precedent for the appropriate sanction.
Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon TatHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2022] SGHC 185SingaporeCited by the Law Society as a precedent for the appropriate sanction.
Singapore Shooting Association and others v Singapore Rifle AssociationSingapore Court of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 395SingaporeCited for the principle that lawyers have a professional obligation to ensure that a proper risk-benefit evaluation is undertaken at each stage of legal proceedings.
Lam Hwa Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Yang QiangSingapore Court of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 191SingaporeCited for the principle that lawyers have a professional obligation to conduct a proper risk-benefit evaluation at each significant stage of the proceedings.
Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh JessilineSingapore Court of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 455SingaporeCited for the principle that lawyers have a professional obligation to conduct a proper risk-benefit evaluation.
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May SelenaHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2013] SGHC 5SingaporeCited for the principle that charges in disciplinary proceedings must give adequate details of the alleged offending.
Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2013] 1 SLR 83SingaporeCited for the principle that charges in disciplinary proceedings must give adequate details of the alleged offending.
Law Society of Singapore v Leong Pek GanHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2016] 5 SLR 1091SingaporeCited for the importance of keeping proper notes of meetings with clients.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay KhiangHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 477SingaporeCited for the importance of keeping proper notes of meetings with clients.
Law Society of Singapore v Lau See Jin JeffreyHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2017] 4 SLR 148SingaporeCited for the importance of keeping proper notes of meetings with clients.
Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other mattersHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2020] 1 SLR 907SingaporeCited for the importance of keeping proper notes of meetings with clients to protect lawyers against unwarranted allegations.
Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm)High Court of SingaporeYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 594SingaporeCited for the importance of keeping proper notes of meetings with clients to clarify matters and corroborate a solicitor’s testimony.
Law Society of Singapore v K Jayakumar NaiduHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2012] 4 SLR 1232SingaporeCited for the principle that advice to clients has to be prompt and commensurate with their needs, and not perfunctory.
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2010] 3 SLR 390SingaporeCited for the principle that a determination that an advocate and solicitor’s conduct falls within one of the limbs of s 83(2) is a necessary but not sufficient condition in determining whether due cause has arisen.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matterHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2017] 4 SLR 1369SingaporeCited for the principle that the central inquiry is whether, on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr Hanam’s misconduct is sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of sanctions under s 83(1) of the LPA.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2022] 1 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the principle that it should not be assumed that every case of negligence by a solicitor will result in a finding of due cause for sanction under the LPA.
In re G. Mayor CookeUnknownYes(1889) 5 TLR 407EnglandCited for the principle that for the court to exercise its penal jurisdiction over a solicitor it was not sufficient to show that his conduct had been such as would support an action for negligence or want of skill.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelHigh Court of SingaporeYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited for the principle of whether the solicitor in question is a fit and proper person to be an advocate and solicitor of the court.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2016] 5 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the principles to consider when determining the appropriate sanction in the context of disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter LatimerHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2019] 4 SLR 1427SingaporeCited for the principles to consider when determining the appropriate sanction in the context of disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh JonathanHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2020] 5 SLR 418SingaporeCited for the principle that cases involving grossly improper conduct without dishonesty or deceit will attract a monetary penalty, but this outcome is dependent on the overall circumstances of the case and the overall gravity of the misconduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng ChristopherHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2014] 4 SLR 877SingaporeCited for the principle that a fine would not be appropriate in the face of aggravating factors, such as a record of previous misconduct, or if the misconduct was not a result of mere inadvertence.
Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng JohnHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2012] 3 SLR 150SingaporeCited by Mr. Hanam as a case where a fine was imposed for similar misconduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian SidambaramHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 674SingaporeCited for the principle that the scope of the responsibility to advise turns on the precise identity, sophistication and circumstances of the client.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2023] SGHC 65SingaporeCited for the principle that an abject lack of remorse is an established aggravating factor.
Law Society of Singapore v Nathan EdmundHigh Court of SingaporeYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 905SingaporeCited for the principle that the more senior an advocate and solicitor, the more damage he does to the integrity of the legal profession.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Conduct Rules
  • Due Cause
  • Improper Conduct
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • SOPA Adjudication
  • Attendance Notes
  • Inquiry Committee
  • Sanction
  • Suspension

15.2 Keywords

  • legal profession
  • disciplinary proceedings
  • professional conduct
  • breach
  • show cause action
  • suspension
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings95
Legal Profession Act90
Professional Misconduct85
Costs60
Construction Law30
Arbitration20

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Regulatory Compliance