Law Society of Singapore v Nalpon: Contempt of Court & Disciplinary Proceedings

The Law Society of Singapore applied for an order to punish Mr. Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon for his conduct related to a Magistrate's Appeal and subsequent events. The Court of Three Judges found Mr. Nalpon guilty of improper conduct, specifically contempt of court and misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. The court ordered Mr. Nalpon's suspension from practice for 15 months.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges

1.2 Outcome

Mr. Nalpon is suspended from practice for a period of 15 months in respect of the First and Second Charges.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Law Society sought disciplinary action against Nalpon for contempt of court and misconduct. The court suspended Nalpon for 15 months.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication granted in partPartial
Zero Geraldo Mario NalponRespondentIndividualSuspension from practiceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Chao Hick TinSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yeap Poh Leong AndreRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Timothy Ng Xin ZhanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Zero Geraldo Mario NalponNalpon & Co

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Nalpon published material on Facebook concerning a pending Magistrate's Appeal.
  2. The Attorney-General issued a non-publication direction to Mr. Nalpon.
  3. Mr. Nalpon was ordered to pay costs to the Attorney-General.
  4. Mr. Nalpon published posts alleging plagiarism by the District Judge.
  5. Mr. Nalpon delayed payment of the costs order and published correspondence about it.
  6. The Law Society brought disciplinary charges against Mr. Nalpon.
  7. The Disciplinary Tribunal found Mr. Nalpon guilty of multiple charges.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario, Originating Summons No 4 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 81
  2. Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Huat, , [2018] SGDC 272
  3. Lim Chee Huat v Public Prosecutor, , [2019] 5 SLR 433

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Judge convicted the accused on a charge of drug consumption.
Accused filed notice of appeal against conviction and sentence.
District Judge released written Grounds of Decision.
Mr. Nalpon published material relating to the MA proceedings on Facebook.
Leave was granted to the AG to issue a non-publication direction.
Mr. Nalpon removed the material he had published on Facebook.
Magistrate’s Appeal was heard by a Judge of the General Division of the High Court.
Mr. Nalpon’s application to set aside the NPD was dismissed.
Mr. Nalpon was ordered to pay the AG’s costs fixed at $2,600.
Mr. Nalpon published material relating to the MA proceedings on Facebook.
Judge dismissed the accused’s appeal.
Mr. Nalpon provided a cheque to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
DPP informed Mr. Nalpon that the cheque would need to be re-issued.
A complaint against Mr. Nalpon was lodged with the Law Society.
A complaint against Mr. Nalpon was lodged with the Law Society.
Mr. Nalpon filed a preliminary application to the DT seeking an order to strike out the Complaints.
Mr. Nalpon filed his Defence in the DT proceedings.
The Law Society applied for leave to amend its Statement of Case to prefer additional charges against Mr. Nalpon.
The DT dismissed Mr. Nalpon’s striking out application, but granted the Law Society’s application for leave to amend its Statement of Case.
Hearing before the DT took place.
Hearing before the DT took place.
The DT issued its report, finding Mr. Nalpon guilty on all four charges.
Mr. Nalpon made payment of the Costs.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Nalpon's publication of material relating to the MA proceedings amounted to sub judice contempt of court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sub judice contempt
      • Interference with fair trial
      • Prejudice to administration of justice
  2. Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Nalpon was guilty of misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
      • Wilful failure to comply with costs order
      • Publication of false allegations
  3. Disciplinary Tribunal Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that the DT did not have the jurisdiction to investigate and make determinations in respect of the Third and Fourth Charges.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of Disciplinary Tribunal's powers
      • Admissibility of additional charges
  4. Validity of Complaints
    • Outcome: The court rejected Mr. Nalpon's contention that the disciplinary proceedings against him were void because the Complaints were not filed by the AG personally.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Compliance with Legal Profession Act
      • Delegation of Attorney-General's powers

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Action
  2. Suspension from Practice
  3. Being Struck off the Roll

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
  • Contempt of Court
  • Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Responsibility
  • Regulatory Law

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee HuatDistrict CourtYes[2018] SGDC 272SingaporeCited as the case where Mr. Nalpon acted for the accused and the District Judge convicted the accused on a charge of drug consumption.
Lim Chee Huat v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 433SingaporeCited as the Magistrate's Appeal where the Judge dismissed the accused's appeal but found that the District Judge had failed to fully appreciate the material.
Asia Development Pte Ltd v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 886SingaporeCited to distinguish the question of whether the Minister’s exercise of power was properly signified from the question of whether it had to be exercised by the Minister in person.
Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of WorksN/AYes[1943] 2 All ER 560England and WalesCited regarding the principle governing the devolution of Ministerial powers.
Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matterHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 858SingaporeCited to argue that a Disciplinary Tribunal’s duty is limited to investigating the complaint and the charges preferred in connection with the complaint.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay KhiangN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 477SingaporeCited as a case involving complaints made by lay complainants under s 85(1) where s 89(4) was used.
Law Society of Singapore v Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and anotherN/AYes[2015] 3 SLR 829SingaporeCited as a case involving complaints made by lay complainants under s 85(1) where s 89(4) was used.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeN/AYes[2018] 5 SLR 1261SingaporeCited to define 'grossly improper' conduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter LatimerN/AYes[2019] 4 SLR 1427SingaporeCited to define 'grossly improper' conduct.
Shadrake Alan v Attorney-GeneralN/AYes[2011] 3 SLR 778SingaporeCited to define 'real risk'.
Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matterN/AYes[2020] 3 SLR 446SingaporeCited regarding the relevance of considering the audience of the alleged contemnor.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matterN/AYes[2017] 4 SLR 1369SingaporeCited regarding the seriousness of misconduct to warrant sanctions.
Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul GhaniN/AYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 308SingaporeCited regarding conduct that reasonable people would unhesitatingly say that as a solicitor he should not have done.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh JonathanN/AYes[2020] 5 SLR 418SingaporeCited regarding the applicable general principles for cases involving grossly improper conduct without dishonesty or deceit.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter LatimerN/AYes[2020] 4 SLR 1171SingaporeCited regarding the blatant nature of misconduct warranting a period of suspension.
Law Society of Singapore v Nathan EdmundN/AYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 905SingaporeCited regarding the more senior an advocate and solicitor, the more damage he does to the integrity of the legal profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee AllanN/AYes[2018] 4 SLR 859SingaporeCited regarding a respondent-solicitor who vigorously contests the allegations against him in the face of clearly established objective facts is less likely to be treated leniently.
The Law Society of Singapore v L.F. Violet NettoDisciplinary TribunalYes[2019] SGDT 6SingaporeCited regarding the appropriate disciplinary sanctions for misconduct involving the non-payment of costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (Act 19 of 2016)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contempt of court
  • Sub judice
  • Professional misconduct
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Non-publication direction
  • Costs order
  • Plagiarism
  • Facebook posts
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Attorney-General
  • Law Society
  • Disciplinary Tribunal

15.2 Keywords

  • contempt
  • legal profession
  • disciplinary
  • misconduct
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings95
Legal Profession Act95
Professional conduct90
Grossly Improper Conduct85
Contempt of Court80
Show cause action75
Duty of Candour60
Evidence30
Civil Procedure20

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Contempt of Court
  • Regulatory Law