Two lawyers came under fire in court yesterday, one for alleged touting and the other for failing to advance his clients’ interests and explain to them documents they had signed.
Judgment was reserved in the alleged touting case involving Ms Lilian Bay, which was heard by a Court of Three Judges presided over by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
In the other case, Mr Tan Phuay Khiang was found guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from practice for two years.
A lawyer of 13 years’ standing, he had acted for a couple in the sale of their Housing Board flat in Choa Chu Kang Street 51.
The couple had allegedly been cheated by a moneylender who advanced them a bridging loan to buy an HDB flat, and then collected the sale proceeds from their previous flat without refunding them the due amount.
The moneylender was able to do this because the couple signed a formal document prepared by Mr Tan that authorised a third person to collect the sale proceeds from the HDB.
The couple also signed another formal document to certify that their loan agreement with the moneylender would end when they were given a cheque from the proceeds of the sale of the flat.
But the cheque subsequently bounced.
The couple, who had Primary 6 level education, complained to the Law Society that Mr Tan did not explain to them the nature of the documents they signed.
Lawyer Samuel Chacko, prosecuting for the Law Society, said Mr Tan would also have been expected to explain to his clients why payments from the sales proceeds would be made to the various third parties linked to the property deal.
Instead he drew up the statutory declaration, which the couple signed, authorising payments to five parties that included Saudagar Moneylenders, Ecstasy Properties Services and DK Credit, which had advanced the bridging loan.
From the net proceeds of $142,000 from the HDB for the sale of their flat, all the couple had left was $48.11 after the parties took their cuts.
It emerged that Mr Tan prepared the document for the couple to sign in July 2000 to show that they authorised payment voluntarily and to ‘protect’ himself.
Justice V.K. Rajah noted that the practice of a lawyer getting his clients to sign a statutory declaration for payments specified was ‘unheard of’.
Mr Tan also had not told the couple he had done work from DK Credit, or Ecstasy Properties Services, which handled the sale of the flat.
He had thus failed to advance his clients’ interests and avoid a conflict of interests.
His lawyer Chandra Mohan K. Nair argued, among other things, that the couple were not credible witnesses and urged the court to give Mr Tan the benefit of the doubt.
He added in mitigation that Mr Tan, a father of two, previously served the Law Society and the community.
CJ Chan said the grounds for the court’s decision will be issued later.
The other case, for which judgment was reserved, saw Ms Bay accused of having offered referral fees in return for conveyancing work to a ‘housing agent’ who was a private investigator allegedly hired by rival lawyers.
The investigator secretly recorded and videotaped his March 2004 meeting with her.
At issue, among other things, is whether evidence obtained by such entrapment tactics should be admitted.
CJ Chan said judgment will be reserved until the court has completed hearing all such cases where the issue is involved. It is understood there are at least six.
Source: The Straits Times, 13 April 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment