Two lawyers suspended 3 years each for misleading court, wasting time of five judges
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 10 Apr 2024
Author: Selina Lum
The lawyers did not tell the court about a settlement agreement they had reached until they were questioned during the hearing.
Two lawyers, who are partners at reputable law firms, have each been handed a three-year suspension for misleading Singapore’s highest court and wasting the time of the five judges on the panel.
Mr Paul Seah Zhen Wei, from Tan Kok Quan Partnership, and Mr Chandra Mohan Rethnam, from Rajah & Tann, were the lead counsel on opposite sides of a matter that was heard by the Court of Appeal on Jan 20, 2021.
Mr Seah was representing the liquidators of Sembawang Engineers and Constructors (SEC), while Mr Chandra was representing subcontractor Metax Eco Solutions.
SEC and Metax had reached a settlement agreement of the underlying dispute on Nov 28, 2019, which made the appeal purely academic.
But the lawyers proceeded with the appeal and did not tell the court about the settlement until they were questioned by the court during the hearing.
The liquidators had wanted to go ahead because they wanted the Court of Appeal to determine what they deemed important legal questions that had wide implications on insolvency proceedings.
On April 9, the Court of Three Judges handed down the suspension terms after finding both Mr Seah and Mr Chandra equally culpable of misconduct in their efforts to present the appeal as an important case for a five-judge panel to resolve, when in fact there was no live question to be determined following the settlement
The Court of Three Judges is the highest disciplinary body for the profession and has the power to suspend lawyers or strike them off the rolls.
Justice Belinda Ang noted that the function of courts was to adjudicate and decide on disputes between parties, rather than to give advisory opinions on academic or hypothetical questions.
The court, which also comprised Justice Woo Bih Li and Justice See Kee Oon, will issue a written decision in due course.
Mr Seah’s suspension takes effect on Aug 17, 2024, while Mr Chandra’s takes effect on June 1, 2024.
SEC and Metax were embroiled in a lawsuit over a contract, but before the case could be decided, SEC was wound up in 2017. It owed creditors about $367 million and had assets of about $24 million.
SEC’s liquidators were faced with the issue of whether to proceed with the suit. If SEC lost, the liquidators would be exposed to legal costs as SEC’s assets would not be sufficient.
The liquidators then filed a High Court application to seek clarification relating to the costs.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the liquidators filed an appeal while negotiating a settlement with Metax.
As part of the settlement that was reached, Metax agreed not to file documents for the appeal.
The agreement set out that should the Court of Appeal ask about it, parties can tell the court “only if necessary” that this arose from the settlement of the suit.
The five-judge court issued a scathing judgment on March 3, 2021, criticising the lawyers and the liquidators.
The case was also referred to the Law Society of Singapore on behalf of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Andrew Phang, Justice Judith Prakash, Justice Steven Chong and Justice Quentin Loh.
The Law Society brought two charges against each lawyer – one for misleading the court by omitting to disclose the settlement agreement, and one for wasting the time and resources of the judges.
A disciplinary tribunal, comprising Professor Tan Cheng Han and Mr Tan Jee Ming, was appointed on Nov 15, 2022, to formally investigate the complaint.
In its report on July 19, 2023, the tribunal found Mr Seah and Mr Chandra guilty of both charges.
On April 5, the Law Society, represented by Mr Pradeep Pillai and Mr Melvin Chan, sought a two-year suspension each for Mr Seah and Mr Chandra.
Mr Seah’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Abraham Vergis, said his client “lost his way” while trying to structure a solution for his clients, who had asked his firm to act for them on a pro bono basis.
He also submitted testimonials from prominent lawyers attesting to Mr Seah’s good character.
Mr Chandra’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, argued that he had genuine doubt whether the appeal was rendered academic by the settlement.
He said Mr Chandra’s conduct was out of character and that he had played a subsidiary role to Mr Seah.
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
5234