Law Society of Singapore v Gurdaib Singh s/o Pala Singh [2018] SGHC 47

Two charges and alternative charges were proffered against the Respondent, as follows:

The Respondent pleaded guilty to both charges. We agree with the Disciplinary Tribunal that the Respondent’s conduct with regard to both charges constituted “grossly improper conduct” within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed).

We also note that, in so far as the First Charge is concerned, the Respondent has in fact failed to make full restitution of the sum of $250,000 to the Complainant. Further, the mitigating circumstances he relies on cannot excuse him because they do not impact his decision not to pay or refund the sum that was deposited pursuant to the Escrow Agreement dated 5 November 2014.

Further, the Respondent’s conduct with regard to the Second Charge is, as the Disciplinary Tribunal pointed out, no mere technical breach and in fact constitutes a serious breach of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Ed) which are in place in order to protect clients’ monies.

In so far as the sentence to be meted out to the Respondent is concerned, we note the following observations by this court in Law Society of Singapore v Ismail bin Atan [2017] 5 SLR 746 at [20]–[22]:

In the circumstances, we order that the Respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. In particular, in relation to the First Charge, we echo this court’s sentiments in Re Lim Kiap Khee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 398 that it is of the utmost importance that a solicitor should abide by his formal undertaking. To deliberately breach such an undertaking, given in a professional capacity, would seriously undermine the integrity of the profession. While there is no evidence that the Respondent gained personally from the breach of the undertaking, he has nevertheless fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, and, by his actions, has brought grave dishonour to the profession.