Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar: Disciplinary Tribunal's Duty to Investigate Touting Charges

In Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar, the Court of Appeal of Singapore allowed the Attorney-General's appeal, finding that the Disciplinary Tribunal failed to properly investigate touting charges against Mr. Shanmugam Manohar, an advocate and solicitor. The court set aside part of the Disciplinary Tribunal's determination and directed the Law Society of Singapore to apply for a new Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the matter. The primary legal issue concerned the statutory duty of the Disciplinary Tribunal to 'hear and investigate' a matter under the Legal Profession Act, particularly regarding the alleged practice of touting.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal held that the Disciplinary Tribunal failed its duty to investigate touting charges against Mr. Manohar, ordering a fresh hearing.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shi Pei-Yi Sarah of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ho Jiayun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chng Luey Chi of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shanmugam ManoharRespondentIndividualFresh hearing orderedLost
The Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardOrder to apply for a new Disciplinary TribunalNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Debbie Ong Siew LingJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Khoo Boo JinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Shi Pei-Yi SarahAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ho JiayunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chng Luey ChiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh BajwaBajwa & Co
Spencer ChewGlobal Law Alliance LLC
Petrina Tan Heng KiatBih Li & Lee LLP
Abraham Vergis SCProvidence Law Asia LLC
Axl RizqyProvidence Law Asia LLC
Darrell Low Kim BoonBih Li & Lee LLP
Ng Rui WenBih Li & Lee LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Manohar, an advocate and solicitor, was alleged to have engaged in touting by rewarding Mr. Ng for client referrals.
  2. The Attorney-General referred the matter to the Law Society, alleging breaches of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015.
  3. A previous Disciplinary Tribunal (DT 9) found Mr. Manohar guilty, but the decision was set aside by the Court of Three Judges due to incorrect admission of evidence.
  4. A second Disciplinary Tribunal (DT 23) was appointed, but it concluded that Mr. Manohar had no case to answer on the touting charges due to lack of evidence.
  5. The Law Society faced difficulties in securing the attendance of key witnesses, Mr. Ng and Mr. Krishna, due to issues with substituted service of Attendance Orders.
  6. The Second DT dismissed the Law Society’s application for substituted service orders, and the High Court also declined to grant them.
  7. The Court of Appeal found that the Second DT failed to exercise its case management powers to facilitate the adduction of evidence from Mr. Ng and Mr. Krishna.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar and another, Civil Appeal No 18 of 2024, [2025] SGCA 2
  2. The Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar, , [2020] SGDT 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Manohar admitted to the Singapore Bar.
CAD investigations against Mr. Ng Kin Kok for motor insurance fraud uncover Mr. Manohar’s alleged misconduct.
The Attorney-General made a referral against Mr Manohar to the Law Society.
Hearing for DT/9/2019 took place.
Hearing for DT/9/2019 took place.
The First DT found that all the disciplinary charges brought against Mr Manohar were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court of Three Judges set aside the decision of the First DT.
DT/23/2022 was convened, and a second Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed.
Hearing of DT 23 proceeded.
Hearing of DT 23 proceeded.
The Second DT held that Mr Manohar had no case to answer in relation to the touting charges.
The Council of the Law Society accepted the Determination on the issue of liability and notified Mr Manohar of it.
The AG filed an application, HC/OA 541/2023, under s 97 of the LPA for a review of the entirety of the Determination.
The AG filed CA/CA 18/2024 to appeal against the Judge’s decision.
Hearing before the court.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Duty of Disciplinary Tribunal to Investigate
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the Disciplinary Tribunal failed to discharge its statutory duty to hear and investigate the touting charges.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to ensure adduction of relevant evidence
      • Passive stance of Disciplinary Tribunal
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] SGDT 9
      • [2022] 3 SLR 731
  2. Touting
    • Outcome: The court ordered a fresh hearing to investigate the touting charges.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Determination
  2. Order to set aside the Determination
  3. Order for a new Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the matter

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
  • Violation of Legal Profession Act 1966

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Conduct
  • Disciplinary Actions

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam ManoharDisciplinary TribunalYes[2020] SGDT 9SingaporeCited for the First DT's finding that the disciplinary charges against Mr. Manohar were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam ManoharCourt of Three JudgesYes[2022] 3 SLR 731SingaporeCited for the C3J's decision to set aside the First DT's decision due to incorrect admission of evidence and directing a fresh hearing.
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 AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1135SingaporeCited regarding the court's duty to determine disputes, not to render advice or comment upon hypothetical issues.
Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar and anotherHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 28SingaporeCited for the Judge's decision to dismiss the AG's application for review.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 926SingaporeCited regarding the Judge’s review of the correctness of a decision made by a body constituted under the LPA.
Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matterHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 858SingaporeCited regarding the Judge exercising both supervisory and appellate jurisdiction.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 874SingaporeCited regarding the Judge exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 934SingaporeCited regarding the role of the Disciplinary Tribunal to carry out a thorough finding of fact as to whether an advocate and solicitor was guilty of misconduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 390SingaporeCited regarding the function of the Disciplinary Tribunal is to serve as a ‘filter’ of sorts, thereby ensuring that only the most serious complaints are referred to the court of three Judges.
JD Ltd v Comptroller of Income TaxCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR 484SingaporeCited regarding the fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that Parliament shuns tautology and does not legislate in vain.
In re An Advocate and SolicitorN/AYes[1950] MLJ 113N/ACited regarding the functions of the Disciplinary Committee under the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance.
Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of AccountantsHigh CourtYes[1989] 2 SLR(R) 633SingaporeCited regarding the Disciplinary Committee going well beyond its authority to carry out a “due inquiry” under the [Accountants Act (Cap 212, 1970 Rev Ed)], until the inquiry became an inquisition of its own, aimed at securing evidence to justify a finding of guilt.
Law Society of Singapore v Nathan EdmundHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 905SingaporeCited regarding the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee are truly adversarial.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant KulkarniN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85SingaporeCited regarding our system of justice is founded on an adversarial model rather than an inquisitorial model.
Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058SingaporeCited regarding the exposition of the law on proscribing judicial interference in Re Shankar.
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited regarding the objective of disciplinary proceedings is to uphold the standards of the profession in order to retain public confidence in the honesty, integrity and professionalism of its members.
Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat PaglarHigh CourtYes[2021] 4 SLR 382SingaporeCited regarding the overriding purpose is to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the legal profession.
Shanmugam Manohar v Attorney-General and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] 3 SLR 600SingaporeCited regarding touting has been regarded by the courts as a serious ethical breach.
Re Ong Tiang ChoonN/AYes[1977-1978] SLR(R) 291SingaporeCited regarding touting could attract the punishment of disbarment.
Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 753SingaporeCited regarding advocates and solicitors should be held to a higher standard of conduct than others who have not been accorded the privileges that advocates and solicitors have under the law.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 1279SingaporeCited regarding the Law Society did not act in bad faith nor was it guilty of gross dereliction; it should not be made to pay costs when it was performing its regulatory functions.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaHigh CourtYes[2021] 2 SLR 1013SingaporeCited regarding the Judge may also assess the substantive merits of the findings and determinations of the [Disciplinary Tribunal].

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021 (2020 Rev Ed) O 7 r 7(1)
Rules of Court 2021 (2020 Rev Ed) O 7 r 7(2)
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules (Cap 161, R 2, 2010 Rev Ed) r 11
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules (Cap 161, R 2, 2010 Rev Ed) r 26(1)
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules r 10
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules rr 3, 4 and 8
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules r 23
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules r 26
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules r 13
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules r 17

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966 (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 s 85(3)Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 s 83Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 s 98(8)(b)(ii)Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 s 83(2)(e)Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 s 97Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 s 97(4)Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966 ss 89 and 93Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 32(1)(j)(ii)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Touting
  • Substituted Service
  • Case Management Powers
  • Statutory Duty
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Attorney-General
  • Law Society
  • Hearing and Investigation
  • Professional Misconduct

15.2 Keywords

  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Touting
  • Legal Profession
  • Singapore
  • Advocate
  • Solicitor
  • Investigation
  • Case Management

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility90
Touting85
Disciplinary Proceedings75
Administrative Law50
Litigation30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Administrative Law