SINGAPORE – A lawyer asked a former client if she was interested in becoming the director of a trading company, but omitted to tell her that the firm was facing a US$1.6 million (S$2.2 million) lawsuit.

After her appointment, the woman was apparently not told about various court proceedings, and was subsequently fined $25,000 for contempt of court.

Separately, Mr Peter Ezekiel also acted for the woman and her husband in a lawsuit to recover a loan.

But he mishandled the lawsuit, which ultimately led to his clients having to repurchase their own belongings at a public auction following the seizure of their assets.

Mr Ezekiel was struck off the rolls on Jan 24, 2024, over his misconduct in relation to the two sets of events.

In written grounds for the striking-off, issued on March 28, the Court of Three Judges said Mr Ezekiel demonstrated “a sustained pattern of offensive conduct which pointed to a character defect”, making him unfit to remain a lawyer. The court is the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession.

Mr Ezekiel, who was called to the Bar in May 1996, had been suspended from practice since 2019.

In April 2019, he was given a three-year suspension for favouring the interests of one client over another.

He was handed a further two-year suspension in February 2020 for ignoring his client’s messages for 14 months after he failed to attend a crucial hearing.

The striking-off was over two separate matters that took place between 2016 and 2019.

The first was his involvement in the appointment of his former client, Ms Doan Thi Thanh Thuy, as a director of fuel trading company Hang Huo Energy, and the events that followed.

Ms Thuy and her husband, Mr Melvin Chung, had engaged Mr Ezekiel to act for them in an adoption matter in 2015.

In 2016, Mr Ezekiel asked Ms Thuy whether she would be interested in becoming a director of Hang Huo, which he falsely claimed was a dormant company.

He said the firm needed to replace another director, Mr Lim Kian Boon, who purportedly needed to return to Malaysia.

Mr Ezekiel assured Ms Thuy that she would not face any liability as long as she did not sign any personal guarantee.

He knew Hang Huo had been sued by Malaysian company Horizon Petroleum over an alleged debt of US$1.6 million.

Instead of checking it himself, he relied only on Mr Lim’s assertions that the case had been settled.

Horizon obtained judgment against Hang Huo in February 2017. Ms Thuy and others were then ordered to attend court to be questioned on the company’s finances.

Mr Ezekiel, who was appointed to act for Hang Huo in October 2017, apparently failed to tell her about the proceedings. She failed to respond to the court orders, which led Horizon to take out contempt proceedings against her.

A warrant of arrest was issued against Ms Thuy after she failed to turn up in court on April 2, 2018. She was subsequently ordered to pay a $25,000 fine for contempt, failing which she had to spend 14 days in jail.

Ms Thuy’s passport was also ordered to be impounded until the fine was paid.

Mr Ezekiel filed an application for Ms Thuy’s passport to be returned to her temporarily, and for her to be allowed to travel to Vietnam for a period of up to 30 days.

He gave a personal undertaking to the court and agreed to provide a $25,000 bond.

In the meantime, Mr Ezekiel was engaged by Ms Thuy and Mr Chung in September 2017 to sue two individuals for the repayment of loans.

Lawyers for the defendants then asked for copies of certain documents that were listed by Ms Thuy and Mr Chung.

These requests were not acceded to, apparently because Mr Ezekiel had failed to tell his clients about them.

This culminated in a court order on April 30, 2018, that the lawsuit would be dismissed unless the couple filed an affidavit to disclose the documents.

Mr Ezekiel did not tell his clients about this, and failed to arrange for the couple to depose the required affidavit.

On May 14, 2018, the couple’s lawsuit was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay legal costs to the defendants.

Mr Ezekiel filed two further applications, but this resulted in orders for additional costs against the couple.

The defendants filed a writ of seizure and sale, and assets belonging to the couple were seized in October 2018.

After the couple lodged a complaint, the Law Society brought four charges against Mr Ezekiel.

He was found guilty of all four charges by an independent disciplinary tribunal, which found that the case was serious enough for him to be punished by the court.

The court upheld three charges – one for failing to disclose information to Ms Thuy, one for failing to act with diligence and competence in the couple’s suit, and one for failing to keep the couple informed of the progress of the suit.

The court overturned the charge for failing to withdraw from representing Ms Thuy despite a potential conflict of interest.

This was in relation to the $25,000 bond that Mr Ezekiel agreed to post for the release of her passport.

The court said Mr Ezekiel’s decision to give a personal undertaking was “unwise”, but found no potential conflict of interest.

The court also advised lawyers to avoid giving an undertaking for matters beyond their control; lawyers may face disciplinary action for breaches of the undertaking, even if the breach was caused by a third party.