Law Society v Seah Zhen Wei Paul: Professional Misconduct and Duty to Court

The Law Society of Singapore brought applications against Mr. Seah Zhen Wei Paul and Mr. Rethnam Chandra Mohan for disciplinary action under the Legal Profession Act. The central issue was whether the settlement of High Court Suit No 965/2012 rendered the appeal in CA/CA 146/2019 academic, and whether the Respondents knowingly allowed CA 146 to continue before the Court of Appeal despite the settlement. The Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges found due cause for disciplinary sanctions and imposed a three-year suspension on both Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges

1.2 Outcome

The court imposed a suspension for a term of three years on both Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Law Society's applications against Seah Zhen Wei Paul and Rethnam Chandra Mohan for disciplinary sanctions due to misleading the Court of Appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardSuccessful in applicationWon
Seah Zhen Wei PaulRespondentIndividualSuspension for three yearsLost
Rethnam Chandra MohanRespondentIndividualSuspension for three yearsLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
See Kee OonJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chan Kah Keen MelvinTSMP Law Corporation
Pillai Pradeep GPRP Law LLC
Abraham Vergis SCProvidence Law Asia LLC
Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh SCDavinder Singh Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Law Society brought applications for disciplinary action against Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan.
  2. Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan were advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
  3. The respondents were involved in CA 146, an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
  4. The underlying dispute in CA 146 was related to Suit 965, a High Court case.
  5. The parties in Suit 965 reached a settlement agreement.
  6. The respondents allowed CA 146 to proceed despite the settlement.
  7. The respondents did not disclose the settlement to the Court of Appeal until specifically queried.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Seah Zhen Wei Paul and another matter, Originating Applications Nos 11 of 2023 and 12 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 224

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Legal Profession Act 1966 enacted
Mr. Seah called to the bar in Singapore
SEC and Metax contracted for Metax to supply goods to SEC
Metax purported to rescind contract with SEC
SEC commenced Suit 965 in the High Court
Parties filed written closing submissions
Parties filed written reply submissions
Parties filed costs schedules
SEC placed under judicial management
SEC ordered to be wound up in HC/CWU 90/2017
TKQP appointed to act for SEC in Suit 965
Judge granted stay of proceedings in Suit 965
Metax requested update regarding adjudication of proof of debt
Liquidators filed ex parte application in HC/SUM 79/2019
Metax filed application to intervene in SUM 79
Judge allowed Metax’s application to intervene in SUM 79; Hearings for SUM 79 took place
Hearings for SUM 79 took place; Judge directed directions on matters which have arisen under the winding up of Sembawang Engineering and Constructors Pte Ltd
Liquidators filed application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to file their Notice of Appeal vide CA/OS 16/2019
Application allowed
Liquidators filed an appeal against the whole of the Judge’s decision
Settlement Agreement reached
R&T wrote a letter to the Supreme Court Registry
Appeal fixed for hearing before a five-judge coram; Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal
Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan wrote to the Supreme Court Registry to offer their respective explanations
Court of Appeal released its written grounds of decision
Registrar of the Supreme Court wrote a complaint to the Law Society
Law Society preferred two sets of charges against Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan each
Report dated 19 July 2023 issued by the Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of the Respondents
Hearing for OA 11 and OA 12
Court delivered its decision
Full written grounds provided

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty to the Court
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondents breached their duty to the court by knowingly misleading the Court of Appeal.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misleading the court
      • Suppression of relevant information
      • Wastage of judicial resources
  2. Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondents' conduct amounted to professional misconduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Improper conduct
      • Unbefitting conduct
  3. Interpretation of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
    • Outcome: The court held that Rule 9(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules imposes substantive obligations.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Substantive obligations under Rule 9(1)
      • Duty to assist in the administration of justice

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Sanctions
  2. Suspension

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Duty to the Court
  • Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
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 LtdHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 1135SingaporeCited for the factual background of the case and the initial proceedings in the High Court.
Ho Wing On Christopher and others v ECRC Land Pte Ltd (in liquidation)Court of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 817SingaporeCited for the principle that a successful litigant against a company in liquidation is entitled to be paid his costs in priority to the other general expenses of the liquidation.
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v JervisHouse of LordsYes[1944] AC 111United KingdomCited for the general principle that the court will decline to hear cases or arguments that do not involve a live dispute between the parties.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matterCourt of Three JudgesYes[2017] 4 SLR 1369SingaporeCited for the admissibility of minute sheets as evidence and the standard of proof required to establish a breach of the duty not to mislead the court.
Tan Beng Hui Carolyn v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of Three JudgesYes[2023] 1 SLR 602SingaporeCited for the admissibility of minute sheets as evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
Rondel v WorsleyHouse of LordsYes[1969] 1 AC 191United KingdomCited for the principle that a legal practitioner has an overriding duty to the court.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the solicitor's paramount duty to the court and the duty not to mislead the court.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited for the significance of a solicitor's duty of candour as an officer of the court.
Public Trustee and another v By Products Traders Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 449SingaporeCited for the definition of misleading or deceptive conduct.
Derry v PeekHouse of LordsYes14 App Cas 337United KingdomCited for the mental state required to establish a breach of the duty not to mislead the court.
Browne v DunnHouse of LordsYes(1893) 6 R 67United KingdomCited for the rule that a party must put its case to the opposing witness during cross-examination.
Ong Pang Siew v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 606SingaporeCited for the purpose of the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Liza bte Ismail v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 555SingaporeCited for the flexibility of the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the court's consideration of the totality of the evidence when evaluating an objection under the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the meaning of 'improper conduct' under s 83(2)(b) of the LPA.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeCourt of Three JudgesYes[2018] 5 SLR 1261SingaporeCited for the standard of 'unbefitting conduct' under s 83(2)(h) of the LPA.
Re Parti LiyaniHigh CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 1080SingaporeCited for the paramount duty of any advocate and prosecutor to assist the court in the administration of justice.
The Law Society of Singapore v Koh Tien HuaDisciplinary TribunalYes[2020] SGDT 6SingaporeCited for the violation of the principles of r 9(1)(a) of the PCR.
The Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyDisciplinary TribunalYes[2020] SGDT 8SingaporeCited for the interpretative provisions in the PCR imposing substantive obligations.
Law Society of Singapore v Seah Choon Huat Johnny and another matterCourt of Three JudgesYes[2024] 3 SLR 1786SingaporeCited for the court's satisfaction that the solicitor's misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of sanctions under s 83(1) of the LPA.
Law Society of Singapore v Hanam, Andrew JohnCourt of Three JudgesYes[2023] 4 SLR 1280SingaporeCited for the sentencing considerations in disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyCourt of Three JudgesYes[2016] 5 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the sanctions serving the primary purpose of safeguarding the public interest.
Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee YeanCourt of Three JudgesYes[2010] 3 SLR 560SingaporeCited for the strict approach to punishing a solicitor's misconduct involving dishonesty.
Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon YangCourt of Three JudgesYes[2018] 5 SLR 1068SingaporeCited for the categories of misconduct indicative of a character defect or undermining the administration of justice.
Law Society of Singapore v Mohammed Lutfi bin HussinCourt of Three JudgesYes[2023] 3 SLR 509SingaporeCited for the treatment of misconduct involving any form of dishonesty with utmost severity.
Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 753SingaporeCited for the solicitors withholding salient information from the court and perpetrating fraud on the court.
Law Society of Singapore v G B VasudevenCourt of Three JudgesYes[2019] 5 SLR 876SingaporeCited for the solicitor guilty of misconduct involving dishonesty that fell within the second and third broad categories of cases identified in Chia Choon Yang.
Zhou Tong and others v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 534SingaporeCited for the solicitor's failure to assist the court adequately would result in the waste of judicial time and resources.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaHigh CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 1417SingaporeCited for the observations of the Court of Appeal in its written grounds do not bind the Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges whose jurisdiction is distinct from the civil jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy and another matterCourt of Three JudgesYes[2024] 4 SLR 1441SingaporeCited for the errant solicitor's personal culpability and mitigating factors generally have little relevance in cases where the presumptive position of striking off applies.
Law Society of Singapore v Kasturibai d/o ManickamHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 55SingaporeCited for the circumstances might present themselves whereby lawyers ostensibly have difficulty navigating and managing clients’ instructions with the duty owed to the court.
Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting FaiHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 587SingaporeCited for the possibility of an appeal against an order was raised between the client and the respondent solicitor, Mr Chung Ting Fai after the stipulated time frame for an appeal had lapsed.
Alastair Brett v The Solicitors Regulation AuthorityHigh CourtYes[2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin)England and WalesCited for the observations in Alastair Brett v The Solicitors Regulation Authority.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act 1893Singapore
Interpretation Act 1965Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Professional misconduct
  • Duty to the court
  • Settlement agreement
  • Misleading the court
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
  • Administration of justice
  • Officer of the court
  • Duty of candour

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Professional Conduct
  • Duty to Court
  • Misleading the Court
  • Disciplinary Action
  • Singapore Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility95
Breach of Duty70
Civil Litigation60
Appellate Practice50

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Court Procedure