Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Straits Times, Singapore (Used by permission)
by Khushwant Singh

A SPECIAL court that deals with errant lawyers has questioned why it took years for Singapore's legal watchdog to start disciplinary hearings against four solicitors who practised without licences.

The Court of Three Judges made the comment yesterday as it weighed the cases of the four lawyers, who face penalties ranging from a fine to being struck off the rolls.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said: 'If matters had been heard earlier, they could have served a two-year suspension, for example, and be back in practice.'

The CJ was referring to Mr Mahadevan Lukshumayeh, Mr Bhaskaran Shamkumar, Mr Leo Chin Hao and Ms Jasvendar Kaur, who have been brought before the special court by the Law Society.

Pointing out that the four are unable to practise until disciplinary proceedings have been completed, the court asked why the hearings took between two and three years to begin.

The four lawyers have already been tried in the criminal courts and convicted of operating without the certificate that allows them to practise law and appear in court. Three were jailed while the fourth was fined.

Yesterday, the lawyers pleaded for leniency, saying they committed the offences not for financial gains, but to help their clients.

The Law Society's lawyer, Mr Tan Cheow Hung, said that it had been waiting for the four lawyers to be prosecuted in the criminal courts, which was completed only in November 2006.

When contacted by The Straits Times, a Law Society spokesman said that it 'subsequently learnt of the convictions from the media'.

Once the Law Society obtained the particulars of the charges against the four, steps were taken to bring them before the Court of Three Judges, the spokesman replied in an e-mail.

In the court, lawyers for Mr Lukshumayeh, Mr Shamkumar and Mr Leo said that their clients practised without a certificate mainly to polish off ongoing cases while winding down their firms.

Ms Kaur, who represented herself, said she did not collect fees for work done while she was without a practising certificate.

Mr Lukshumayeh's lawyer said that his client forgot to renew his certificate in time and mistakenly thought he could never do it again.

The $119,000 he earned from the offences barely covered overheads, his lawyer said.

After closing his firm in October 2003, Mr Lukshumayeh confessed his wrongdoing to the Law Society and the Commercial Affairs Department.

As the court needed time to consider the different circumstances of the four cases, CJ Chan reserved judgment.
The date of the next hearing has yet to be announced.

They practised without a licence

Mr Bhaskaran Shamkumar, 41

• Called to the Bar in 1995

• Practising certificate expired in March 2003

• Pleaded guilty to two charges of preparing papers for the magistrate courts between May and September 2003

• Three other charges taken into consideration during sentencing

• Paid back $6,900 in fees collected

• Jailed for a month in June 2005

Ms Jasvendar Kaur, 39

• Called to the Bar in 1996

• Practising certificate expired in March 2005

• Pleaded guilty to lying to a district judge about her professional status, as well as to four other charges of attending a chambers hearing and writing letters identifying herself as an advocate and solicitor between April and May 2005

• 38 charges taken into consideration during sentencing

• Fined $4,000 and jailed a month in November 2006

Mr Mahadevan Lukshumayeh, 49

• Called to the Bar in 1991

• Practising certificate expired in March 2002

• Pleaded guilty to six charges, including filing court documents in the months after his licence expired

• 43 similar charges taken into consideration during sentencing

• $119,000 in fees collected from these violations

• Jailed nine months in May 2005

Mr Leo Chin Hao, 38

• Called to the Bar in 1995

• Practising certificate expired in March 2003

• Pleaded guilty to one charge of sending letters identifying himself as an advocate and solicitor between April 16 and May 6, 2003

• Three similar charges taken into consideration during sentencing

• Made restitution of the $3,900 in fees collected

• Fined $1,000 in February 2005

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed