Law Society of Singapore v Hanam, Andrew John [2023] SGHC 132

Sushant Shukla

Case Details

Citation: [2023] SGHC 132
Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Date: 2023-05-10
Judges: Tay Yong Kwang JCA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA and Andrew Phang Boon Leong SJ
Plaintiff/Applicant: Law Society of Singapore
Defendant/Respondent: Hanam, Andrew John
Legal Areas: Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings, Legal Profession — Professional conduct, Legal Profession — Show cause action
Statutes Referenced: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161), Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161), Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161), Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act
Cases Cited: [2013] SGHC 5, [2022] SGHC 185, [2022] SGDT 12, [2023] SGHC 132
Judgment Length: 71 pages, 21,818 words

Summary

This case involves disciplinary proceedings brought by the Law Society of Singapore against Mr. Andrew John Hanam, a senior lawyer with 18 years of experience. The proceedings arose from a complaint made by Mr. Krishnamoorthy Pugazendhi, the sole director and shareholder of P&P Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd ("P&P"), regarding Mr. Hanam's handling of P&P's dispute with Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd over unpaid invoices. The High Court found that Mr. Hanam had breached professional conduct rules and ordered him to be suspended from practice for 9 months.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The dispute between P&P and Kori arose from two subcontracts for construction work, one for the provision of manpower and the other for steel fabrication. Kori owed P&P close to $1.5 million in unpaid invoices under these subcontracts. Mr. Hanam was appointed by Mr. Pugazendhi to represent P&P in recovering these unpaid amounts.

The dispute resulted in three separate legal proceedings over a period of nearly three years: Suit 1255, DC 1043, and Suit 1167. Throughout this litigation, Mr. Hanam did not keep any attendance notes or records of his discussions with Mr. Pugazendhi. The High Court found that Mr. Hanam's handling of the matter demonstrated several failures, including: failing to obtain instructions or consent before taking certain actions, failing to properly advise on settlement offers and alternative dispute resolution options, and failing to properly advise on the commencement of legal proceedings.

These failures led to adverse costs orders being made against P&P in the course of the litigation, further compounding the financial difficulties faced by the company. The High Court noted that Mr. Hanam, as an experienced lawyer of 18 years' standing, was expected to demonstrate a minimum standard of competence in rendering legal advice, which he failed to do in this case.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The key legal issues in this case were whether Mr. Hanam had breached the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 ("PCR") and, if so, whether there was sufficient cause for disciplinary action to be taken against him under the Legal Profession Act.

Specifically, the Law Society alleged that Mr. Hanam had breached rules 17(2)(e) and 17(2)(f) of the PCR, which require a lawyer to: (e) obtain the client's instructions or consent before taking any step in proceedings; and (f) advise the client on the merits of the case, the available courses of action, and the risks involved.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The High Court carefully examined the evidence and the conduct of the litigation by Mr. Hanam on behalf of P&P. The court found that Mr. Hanam had indeed breached the relevant professional conduct rules in several instances:

1. Failing to obtain Mr. Pugazendhi's instructions or consent before filing an application for judgment in Suit 1255 based on the settlement agreement reached.

2. Failing to obtain Mr. Pugazendhi's instructions or consent before issuing an offer to settle on P&P's behalf in Suit 1167.

3. Failing to properly advise on Kori's offer to settle in DC 1043.

4. Failing to properly advise on the December 2016 invoices that were not included in the initial claim in Suit 1255.

5. Failing to properly advise on the option of waiting for the judgment in Suit 1255 before commencing Suit 1167.

The court noted that the absence of attendance notes and other contemporaneous records made it difficult for Mr. Hanam to demonstrate that he had provided adequate legal advice to his client. The court also found that Mr. Hanam's conduct fell short of the minimum standard of competence expected of an experienced lawyer.

What Was the Outcome?

The High Court held that the Law Society had established the two primary charges against Mr. Hanam and that there was sufficient cause for disciplinary action to be taken. The court ordered that Mr. Hanam be suspended from practice for a period of 9 months.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case is significant for several reasons:

1. It reinforces the importance of lawyers adhering to professional conduct rules, particularly in relation to obtaining client instructions and providing competent legal advice. The High Court's findings highlight the need for lawyers to maintain proper records and documentation to support the reasonableness of their actions and advice.

2. The case serves as a reminder that experienced lawyers are expected to demonstrate a minimum standard of competence in handling client matters, even in relatively straightforward disputes. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary sanctions.

3. The court's emphasis on the need for lawyers to properly advise clients on alternative dispute resolution options, such as the adjudication regime under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, is an important guidance for practitioners in the construction law field.

4. The case underscores the Law Society's role in upholding professional standards and taking disciplinary action against lawyers who breach their ethical obligations, which is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the legal profession.

Legislation Referenced

Cases Cited

Source Documents

This article analyses [2023] SGHC 132 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.

Written by Sushant Shukla

Topics

Singapore SLW Case Law Legal Profession