LITT
Try LITT free
Law Society of Singapore v Li Zhongsheng [2025] SGHC 205
Misconduct involving dishonesty by a solicitor will almost invariably warrant striking off the Roll, as it reveals a character defect rendering the solicitor unsuitable for the profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh [2025] SGHC 175
A lawyer's total failure to supervise a conveyancing clerk for a prolonged period, which enabled the clerk to misappropriate client funds and deceive the client, constitutes serious misconduct warranting a significant period of suspension.
Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Poh Tiang (alias Yang Baozhen) [2025] SGHC 136
False attestation by a solicitor, even if done with a belief in the client's intent, constitutes dishonesty and grossly improper conduct warranting disciplinary sanction.
Attorney-General v Shanmugam Manohar and another [2025] SGCA 2
A Disciplinary Tribunal has a statutory duty to 'hear and investigate' a matter, which requires it to proactively exercise its case management powers to facilitate the adduction of relevant and material evidence when parties face procedural difficulties.
Law Society of Singapore v Kasturibai d/o Manickam [2024] SGHC 55
False attestation of documents by a solicitor, even without personal gain or character defect, constitutes professional misconduct warranting suspension.
Law Society of Singapore v Nedumaran Muthukrishnan [2024] SGHC 218
A solicitor who knowingly makes false representations to a client regarding the status of payments, even if the solicitor believes the funds belong to them, is guilty of dishonest conduct warranting suspension.
Law Society of Singapore v Syn Kok Kay [2023] SGHC 7
Overcharging by a solicitor constitutes due cause for sanction if it is sufficiently serious, determined by factors including the extent of overcharging, the solicitor's intention, and subsequent conduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Cheng Kim Kuan [2023] SGHC 350
A solicitor who breaches a solemn undertaking given to the Court and the Law Society, particularly one involving the supervision of a solicitor with a psychiatric condition, commits professional misconduct warranting suspension.
Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin and Another [2007] SGHC 35
Lawyers who act in conflict of interests and enable unauthorised persons to perform legal work are liable to suspension from practice, even in the absence of dishonesty, to protect public interest and maintain professional standards.
Law Society of Singapore v Liew Boon Kwee James [2007] SGHC 209
The court held that circumstantial evidence, including the respondent's silence and failure to call witnesses, was sufficient to prove the charges of touting beyond a reasonable doubt.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye Dave [2006] SGHC 216
A solicitor was suspended for grossly improper conduct after offering monetary incentives to third parties to secure conveyancing work. This breach of the Legal Profession Act highlights the court's strict stance against unethical client procurement.
Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting Fai [2006] SGHC 167
A solicitor who knowingly prepares a false affidavit for a client, even if not filed, commits misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor under s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2005] SGHC 148
A solicitor who commits professional misconduct by failing to maintain proper accounts and allowing an unauthorised person to be a co-signatory to firm accounts may be suspended rather than struck off if the misconduct was not dishonest and was caused by medical illness.
The Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence [2000] SGHC 180
A solicitor convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty, such as theft, will almost invariably be struck off the roll as it implies a defect of character rendering them unfit for the profession.
The Law Society of Singapore v G B Vasudeven
Dishonesty by a solicitor in the discharge of professional duties, including the creation of fictitious court documents and forgery, warrants the sanction of striking off.
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o Daniel
The Disciplinary Tribunal has the discretion to refrain from referring matters to the court of three Judges even if all elements of a disciplinary charge are made out, as 'cause of sufficient gravity' is distinct from 'due cause'.
ANDREW LOH DER MING v KOH TIEN HUA
A solicitor must communicate frankly and candidly with their client when instructions conflict with the duty to the court; if the client insists on an untenable position, the solicitor should discharge themselves rather than act against instructions or conceal actions from the cl
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2016] SGHC 242
The court held that in disciplinary proceedings against solicitors, the paramount considerations are the protection of the public and upholding public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, which may outweigh personal mitigating circumstances such as a mental condit
Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat [2022] SGHC 185
A solicitor's failure to comply with discovery orders and keep a client informed, resulting in the striking out of a claim, constitutes a grave breach of professional duty warranting a significant period of suspension.
The Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat Paglar [2021] SGHC 27
The Court of Three Judges held that the Disciplinary Tribunal erred in finding cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action based on original charges that were subsequently amended to remove allegations of dishonesty. Antecedents are irrelevant to determining liability in
Law Society of Singapore v G B Vasudeven [2019] SGHC 187
Misconduct involving dishonesty by a solicitor is viewed with utmost gravity and generally warrants striking off, especially where there is a violation of the solicitor-client relationship and the creation of fictitious court documents.