Law Society of Singapore v de Souza Christopher James: Disciplinary Proceedings & Professional Conduct
The Law Society of Singapore applied for sanctions against Mr. Christopher James de Souza, an advocate and solicitor, for allegedly breaching the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015. The Law Society alleged that Mr. de Souza assisted his client in suppressing evidence. The Court of Three Supreme Court Judges dismissed the application, finding that the Law Society had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. de Souza intended to assist his client in suppressing evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Supreme Court Judges1.2 Outcome
Originating Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society sought sanctions against Christopher James de Souza for professional misconduct. The Court dismissed the application, finding no intent to suppress evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| de Souza Christopher James | Respondent | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. de Souza was counsel for Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and Amber Laboratories Pte Ltd.
- The Law Society alleged that Mr. de Souza prepared and filed an affidavit without exhibiting reports that would have revealed Amber had breached its undertakings.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found Mr. de Souza guilty of one primary charge for breach of r 10(3)(a) of the PCR.
- The Law Society commenced Originating Application No 7 of 2022 for Mr. de Souza to be sanctioned.
- Amber commenced Suit 164 against six defendants, claiming misappropriation of confidential information.
- Amber applied for ex parte search orders against D1 and D2, undertaking not to use information obtained except for the proceedings.
- Amber made reports to authorities while represented by Dodwell & Co LLC, breaching the Search Order Undertaking.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v de Souza Christopher James, Originating Application No 7 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 318
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. de Souza admitted to the roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore | |
| Amber commenced Suit 164 against six defendants | |
| Amber applied for ex parte search orders against D1 and D2 via HC/SUM 1291/2018 | |
| High Court Judge ordered D1 and D2 to disclose information to Amber | |
| Search Orders formally dated | |
| Search Orders executed | |
| D1 and D2 filed HC/SUM 2169/2018 to set aside the Search Orders | |
| Judge fixed timelines for filing affidavits and submissions in relation to SUM 2169 | |
| Dodwell & Co LLC agreed to hand over copies of original documents taken from D1 and D2’s premises | |
| Mr. Dodwell informed the Judge that he had exchanged the solicitors’ undertaking set out in the 31 May 2018 letter with Mr Pereira | |
| Judge ordered parties to carry out a “Listing Exercise” | |
| Mr. Sudesh made reports to the Ministry of Manpower | |
| Judge reiterated that Parties were to comply with her previous directions on the Listing Exercise | |
| Mr. Sudesh made reports to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau | |
| Mr. Sudesh made reports to the Singapore Police Force | |
| Associate in the L&L team suspected that Amber had disclosed information in breach of the Riddick Undertaking | |
| Mr. de Souza instructed the L&L team to “halt work” | |
| Mr. de Souza repeated instruction to halt work | |
| The L&L team emailed Mr. Sudesh to understand which evidence was obtained through the Search Orders | |
| Amber appointed L&L as its legal representative in Suit 164 | |
| L&L gained access to the online data room | |
| The L&L team formed the view that Amber had made use of some of the Documents in breach of the Riddick Undertaking | |
| Pre-Trial Conference held before a Senior Assistant Registrar | |
| L&L wrote a letter to Pereira & Tan LLC to seek its consent for an extension of time for the Listing Exercise | |
| Amber filed SUM 484 ex parte | |
| Mr. Sudesh affirmed his 29/1/19 Affidavit in support of Amber’s application | |
| Pereira & Tan LLC replied to the 25/1/19 Letter to agree to the extension of time sought on behalf of Amber | |
| L&L wrote to the court to request “an urgent hearing date” | |
| L&L wrote to the court to seek its approval of the extended timelines of the Listing Exercises parties had agreed to | |
| Judge granted Amber an extension of time to comply with the terms of the Listing Exercise | |
| Amber served the documents on the Defendants | |
| D1 and D2 filed HC/SUM 1094/2019 to set aside the extension of the Listing Exercise timelines | |
| Ms. Lim filed a reply affidavit in SUM 484 on behalf of herself and UrbanRX | |
| SUM 1094 was withdrawn by D1 and D2 | |
| Mr. Sudesh filed a further affidavit dated 25 March 2019 (“Sudesh’s 25/3/19 Affidavit”) to respond to Ms Lim’s affidavit of 11 March 2019 | |
| Amber as well as D1 and D2 each filed written submissions | |
| Judge first heard parties on SUM 484 | |
| Amber filed supplementary written submissions | |
| Parties returned for a hearing before the Judge | |
| Mr. Sudesh filed an affidavit on behalf of Amber as directed | |
| L&L had discharged itself as Amber’s solicitors | |
| The Judge rendered her decision in SUM 484 | |
| Judge furnished her full grounds of decision | |
| Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court referred information touching upon the conduct of Mr. de Souza to the Law Society | |
| An Inquiry Committee was constituted | |
| Inquiry Committee issued report | |
| Council of the Law Society sought the appointment of a disciplinary tribunal | |
| Disciplinary tribunal was formally appointed | |
| The Law Society of Singapore commenced Originating Application No 7 of 2022 | |
| Court dismissed OA 7 after the oral hearing | |
| Court set out its full grounds for dismissing OA 7 |
7. Legal Issues
- Suppression of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the Law Society had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. de Souza intended to assist his client in suppressing evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. de Souza did not breach the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Sanctions under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Pharmaceutical
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | English case | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 891 | England | Acknowledged the implied obligation not to use discovered documents or information obtained therefrom for any purpose other than pursuing the action in which the discovery was obtained. |
| Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 912 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal reversed the Judge’s decision to grant Amber retrospective and prospective leave to disclose the EFMA Documents to the Authorities. |
| Tecnomar & Associates Pte Ltd v SBM Offshore NV | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 36 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had failed to fulfil its duty of full and frank disclosure, and that this was a case of “wilful suppression of material facts” due to the “deliberate and systematic non-disclosure” |
| Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal explained that where there is material non-disclosure in an ex parte application, there is a distinction between suppression and an innocent omission. In this regard, suppression involved some “deliberateness”. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal noted that there was material non-disclosure by the applicant and that the facts were not disclosed “if not deliberately, then certainly because of a patent (and inexcusable) lack of care in assessing what material facts ought to be disclosed”. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | In so far as disciplinary proceedings could lead to the imposition of punitive sanctions, they are quasi-criminal in nature, and the Law Society must prove each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wong Kai Kit | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 721 | Singapore | There is nothing in the LPA which restricts the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings made against the legal practitioner exclusively to the matters set out in s 86(6)(a) of the LPA. |
| Re Lim Chor Pee | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | The Law Society cannot frame a charge which was not contained in the “information” referred by the Attorney-General to the Law Society and notice of which was not given by the Inquiry Committee under what is now s 86(6) of the LPA |
| Re Seah Pong Tshai | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 744 | Singapore | Where a Disciplinary Tribunal is appointed under (what is presently) s 89(1) of the LPA, the “matter” it is appointed to hear and investigate must be the application or complaint that has been received by the Law Society, that has been inquired into and reported upon by the Inquiry Committee, and on which the Council has made a determination. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matter | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 858 | Singapore | A DT has a duty to hear and investigate the complaint and the charges, and it is expected that the charges reflect the gravamen of and fall within the scope of the complaint |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Each party is to bear its own costs in respect of OA 7 (see Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1279 at [24]; Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council [2015] 2 SLR 1179 at [55]). |
| Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Each party is to bear its own costs in respect of OA 7 (see Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1279 at [24]; Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council [2015] 2 SLR 1179 at [55]). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, r 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession Act
- Professional Conduct Rules
- Search Order Undertaking
- Riddick Undertaking
- Suppression of Evidence
- Full and Frank Disclosure
- Originating Application
- Listing Exercise
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Conduct
- Suppression of Evidence
- Singapore Law
- Regulatory
- Ethics
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 90 |
| Professional conduct | 85 |
| Duty of Candour | 75 |
| Improper Conduct | 70 |
| Show cause action | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Misconduct
- Regulatory Law