Mohd Sadique v Law Society & AG: Reinstatement to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
The Court of Three Judges heard an application by Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican to be reinstated to the roll of advocates and solicitors, after being struck off in 2011 due to misappropriation of clients’ funds by his then partner. The Law Society of Singapore and the Attorney-General were the respondents. The court allowed the reinstatement application subject to certain conditions, including restrictions on managing a law practice and handling client accounts for a period of 12 months.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Reinstatement Application Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court reinstated Mohd Sadique to the roll of advocates and solicitors, subject to conditions, after being struck off for misappropriation of client funds.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | No Order as to Costs | Neutral | |
| The Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | No Order as to Costs | Neutral | Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Zhongshan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican | Applicant | Individual | Reinstatement Application Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vergis S Abraham SC | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Loo Yinglin Bestlyn | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Zhongshan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Siraj Omar SC | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Joelle Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Tan Shih Rong Robbie | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Sadique was struck off the Roll on 20 January 2011 following the misappropriation of clients’ funds by his then partner.
- Mr. Sadique was a partner in the law practice called M/s Sadique Marican & Z M Amin.
- Mr. Zulkifli, the managing partner, misappropriated more than $11m of clients’ funds.
- Mr. Sadique failed to adequately supervise transactions involving the Firm’s client account.
- Mr. Sadique was declared a bankrupt on 4 February 2010 and discharged on 7 February 2022.
- Mr. Sadique was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus in 2013.
- Mr. Sadique continued to be actively involved and engaged in legal work overseas after he was struck off the Roll.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican v The Law Society of Singapore and another, Originating Application No 4 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 246
- Law Society of Singapore v Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin and another matter, , [2011] 2 SLR 620
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Sadique admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore | |
| Mr Sadique and Mr Zulkifli set up the law practice called M/s Sadique Marican & Z M Amin | |
| Mr Sadique discovered that both the Firm’s client and office accounts were overdrawn | |
| Mr Zulkifli absconded | |
| Mr Sadique and another partner of the Firm informed the Law Society of Singapore that Mr Zulkifli was untraceable | |
| A police report was made | |
| The Law Society informed Mr Sadique that the Council would inspect the Firm’s accounts | |
| The Council referred the matter to an Inquiry Committee which recommended a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal | |
| The Disciplinary Tribunal heard the charges against Mr Sadique | |
| Mr Sadique was declared a bankrupt | |
| Mr Sadique was struck off the Roll | |
| Mr Sadique was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus | |
| Mr Sadique obtained a Master of Science Degree with Distinction in Construction Law and Dispute Resolution | |
| The cancer recurred | |
| Mr Sadique was discharged from bankruptcy | |
| The Court heard the parties and allowed the Reinstatement Application subject to conditions |
7. Legal Issues
- Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
- Outcome: The Court allowed the application for reinstatement subject to conditions.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Failure to supervise client accounts
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin and another matter | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 620 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where Mr. Sadique was struck off the Roll due to the misappropriation of clients’ funds by his partner. |
| Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should facilitate the applicant's return to the profession in a manner which would enable him to discharge his services to his clients. |
| Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited for the court's observation that given the length of time that the applicant had been away from the practice of law, it would be useful both in the public interest and for the applicant himself to impose additional conditions relating to his legal knowledge and competence. |
| Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 719 | Singapore | Cited for the three factors that an applicant must satisfy before the court will consider him for reinstatement to the Roll under s 102 of the LPA. |
| Chiong Chin May Selena v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 167 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a period that is significantly longer than five years is required between the striking off order and the reinstatement application. |
| Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will consider the extent to which the applicant has rehabilitated himself and will expect nothing short of full rehabilitation. |
| Choy Chee Yean v Law Society of Singapore and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 1268 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that objective evidence of what the applicant has been involved in, as well as references (particularly from members of the legal fraternity) are key in determining whether an applicant for reinstatement to the Roll is fully rehabilitated. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Krishna Morthy S V | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2015] SGDT 7 | Singapore | Cited as a case where an adverse observation was made against Mr Sadique by the Disciplinary Tribunal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Reinstatement
- Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
- Misappropriation
- Client Funds
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Bankruptcy
- Rehabilitation
- Public Interest
- Conditions for Reinstatement
15.2 Keywords
- reinstatement
- legal profession
- solicitor
- advocate
- misappropriation
- Singapore
- Law Society
- Attorney-General
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Reinstatement to Roll
- Professional Misconduct