Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar: Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Decision on Touting Allegations

The Attorney-General applied to the General Division of the High Court for a review of the Disciplinary Tribunal's determination that there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against Shanmugam Manohar regarding allegations of touting. The court, presided over by Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, dismissed the application, finding no errors in the Disciplinary Tribunal's proceedings or decisions. The Law Society of Singapore and Shanmugam Manohar were the respondents.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Attorney-General's application to review the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision regarding Shanmugam Manohar's alleged touting was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralApplicantGovernment AgencyApplication dismissedLost
Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Darshini Ramiah of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shanmugam ManoharRespondentIndividualNo cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary actionWon
The Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardDetermination acceptedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau PengJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jeyendran s/o JeyapalAttorney-General’s Chambers
Khoo Boo JinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Darshini RamiahAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh BajwaBajwa & Co
Spencer ChewGlobal Law Alliance LLC
Petrina Tan Heng KiatBih Li & Lee LLP
Darrell Low Kim BoonBih Li & Lee LLP
Ng Rui WenBih Li & Lee LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Attorney-General applied for a review of the Disciplinary Tribunal's determination.
  2. The Disciplinary Tribunal found no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against Mr. Manohar.
  3. The complaint against Mr. Manohar concerned the alleged practice of touting.
  4. Mr. Manohar pleaded guilty to three non-communication charges.
  5. The Law Society withdrew two non-communication charges and two total non-communication charges.
  6. The Law Society was unable to serve Attendance Orders on Mr. Ng and Mr. Krishna.
  7. The Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a financial penalty of $3,000 on Mr. Manohar.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar and another, Originating Application No 541 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 28

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Attorney-General's complaint against Mr. Manohar filed.
Hearing took place for the first set of disciplinary proceedings.
Hearing took place for the first set of disciplinary proceedings.
DT/23/2022 was convened, and the DT appointed.
Law Society obtained Attendance Orders from the court.
Law Society applied for substituted service orders from the court.
Counsel for the Law Society wrote to the DT, setting out the situation encountered in the Supreme Court Registry.
The DT replied to Counsel for the Law Society.
Counsel for the Law Society re-submitted its applications for substituted service orders to the court.
Assistant registrar dismissed the applications for substituted service orders.
Law Society wrote to the DT, formally applying for substituted service orders.
Mr Manohar responded to the application by the Law Society.
Mr Manohar responded to the application by the Law Society.
The DT dismissed the application for substituted service orders.
Hearing took place.
Hearing took place.
Disciplinary Tribunal made a determination.
The Council accepted the Determination.
Written submissions of the Attorney-General and first and second respondents.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Determination
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for review.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 2 SLR 1013
      • [2020] 4 SLR 858
      • [2021] 1 SLR 874
  2. Power to Order Substituted Service
    • Outcome: The court held that the power to order substituted service of the Attendance Orders lies with the court, not the Disciplinary Tribunal.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Withdrawal of Charges
    • Outcome: The court held that the Disciplinary Tribunal did not err in permitting the Law Society to withdraw certain charges, as the remaining charges accurately reflected the gravamen of the Complaint.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 4 SLR 858
      • [2021] 4 SLR 382
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 300
  4. Cause of Sufficient Gravity for Disciplinary Action
    • Outcome: The court found no basis to intervene with the Disciplinary Tribunal's Determination that there was no cause of sufficient gravity for a referral under s 83 of the LPA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 4 SLR 382
      • [2023] SGDT 2
      • [2013] 3 SLR 875

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Determination
  2. Order setting aside the determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal
  3. Direction for the Law Society to apply for the appointment of another Disciplinary Tribunal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Professional Misconduct
  • Touting

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaCourt of Three JudgesYes[2021] 2 SLR 1013SingaporeCited to explain that s 97 of the LPA empowers a Judge to determine the correctness of the determination of a Disciplinary Tribunal and that a Judge exercises both supervisory and appellate jurisdiction.
Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matterUnknownYes[2020] 4 SLR 858SingaporeCited to explain that in reviewing a matter, a Judge exercises both supervisory and appellate jurisdiction.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[2021] 1 SLR 874SingaporeCited to explain that in exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, the Judge may consider the “correctness, legality or propriety” of the determination, which is “directly referable to the traditional grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety in judicial review”.
Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam ManoharUnknownNo[2022] 3 SLR 731SingaporeCited as the first set of disciplinary proceedings where the C3J set aside the First DT’s decision on the basis that the hearing had not been properly conducted, as there was incorrect admission of certain evidence which had a material impact on the determination.
Tan Ng Kuang Nicky (the duly appointed joint and several liquidator of Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd(in compulsory liquidation)) and others v Metax Eco Solutions Pte LtdCourt of AppealNo[2021] 1 SLR 1135SingaporeCited by the DT to explain that the court’s essential duty is to determine disputes, not to render advice or comment upon hypothetical issues.
Re Ong Tiang ChoonUnknownYes[1977-1978] SLR(R) 291SingaporeCited to explain that a charge of touting if found proved could attract the punishment of disbarment.
Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat PaglarUnknownYes[2021] 4 SLR 382SingaporeCited to explain that the overriding purpose of legal disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the legal profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi MadasamyCourt of Three JudgesYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 300SingaporeCited to explain that while the Law Society has the discretion in relation to how it wishes to proceed with the case, the same would be subject to judicial review.
The Law Society of Singapore v Krishnamoorthi S/o KolanthavelooDisciplinary TribunalNo[2023] SGDT 2SingaporeCited by Mr. Manohar to argue that the penalty of $3,000 imposed upon him is not inappropriate.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o SethurajuUnknownNo[2013] 3 SLR 875SingaporeCited by the Law Society to argue that Udeh Kumar is readily distinguishable, as Mr Manohar met with the clients concerned soon after the warrants to act were executed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules
Rule 11 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules
Rule 26 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules
Rule 12(1) of the DT Rules
Rule 13 of the DT Rules
Rule 3(1)(b) and 3(2)(b) of the DT Rules
Rules of Court 2021
O 15 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2021
O 15 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court
O 15 r 4(3) of the Rules of Court
O 7 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court
O 7 r 7(2) of the Rules of Court
Rule 11A(2)(f) of PCR 2011
Rule 39(2)(g) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 97(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 83 of the Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 97(4)(b)(ii) of the Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 97(4)(b)(ii)(B) of the Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 91(2)(b) of the Legal Profession ActSingapore
s 92(4) of the Legal Profession ActSingapore
s 91(4) of the LPASingapore
s 91(5) of the LPASingapore
s 93 of the LPASingapore
s 94(3)(a) of the LPASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Touting
  • Substituted Service
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Conduct
  • Review Application
  • Gravamen of Complaint
  • Non-communication charges

15.2 Keywords

  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Legal Profession
  • Touting
  • Regulatory
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Disciplinary Proceedings90
Professional Misconduct85
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Regulatory Law
  • Disciplinary Proceedings