Law firm partner ordered to pay $10,000 for disrespecting judge, discourtesy to fellow lawyer

SINGAPORE - The partner of a law firm who made disrespectful remarks against a judge and falsely accused an opposing counsel of committing perjury found herself the subject of 13 complaints lodged by six lawyers.

Following a disciplinary hearing, the Law Society council imposed a $10,000 penalty on Ms Carolyn Tan Beng Hui for making disrespectful remarks to the judge, making perjury allegations against fellow lawyer David Kong and failing to give Mr Kong an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

These acts were in breach of professional conduct rules, which state that lawyers have to be respectful to the court, treat each other with courtesy, and cannot make allegations against another practitioner unless the person is given the opportunity to respond. 

Ms Tan, who has practised law for more than 30 years, appealed against the penalty, first to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal, but failed in her attempts.

On Wednesday, in giving written grounds for dismissing her appeal, the apex court said Ms Tan showed a lack of remorse even in her written mitigation pleas to the disciplinary tribunal.

The court said Ms Tan had made spiteful and self-righteous remarks in her mitigation regarding Mr Kong, who died in February 2019.

She stated in the mitigation that the “dead man is not here to make his case. How can the dead man (sic) non-testimony be preferred over mine”.

She also said that Mr Kong was an “evil person whom God has punished by taking his life in his prime”.

Ms Tan also said that the six lawyers who filed complaints had “tried to poison the mind” of an inexperienced judge.

The court said: “The multiple occasions on which the allegations were made, coupled with the lack of remorse on the appellant’s part, were sufficient aggravating factors that justified the council’s decision on the penalty.”

The disciplinary proceedings arose from a court action – described by the disciplinary tribunal as “fairly mundane” – started by Ms Tan’s firm, Tan & Au, in respect of a sum of money it held as a stakeholder.

The money was the balance of proceeds from the sale of a residential property that was being claimed by seven siblings.

Three siblings were represented by Central Chambers Law Corporation, another three were represented by Yeo-Leong & Peh (YLP), while the seventh was self-represented.

During a hearing on Sept 13, 2018 before then Judicial Commissioner Dedar Singh Gill, lawyers from the two other firms told the judge that Tan & Au had included in their bundle a document that was not tendered in evidence.

After the judge directed that the new document was not to be admitted, Tan & Au applied for the judge to recuse himself.

Ms Tan filed an affidavit supporting the application, where she made certain allegations against the judge and some of the lawyers. The recusal application was eventually dismissed.

In an e-mail dated Sept 20, 2018 to Mr Kong, who was from YLP, Ms Tan claimed she had left several messages for him and added that her calls were not returned.

Mr Kong then filed an affidavit to refute this.

Ms Tan alleged at a later hearing that Mr Kong committed perjury when he said he did not receive any calls from her.

Ms Tan also repeated the perjury accusations in a police report on Sept 27, 2018 and in her closing submissions for the court action filed on Oct 12, 2018.

On Oct 26, 2018, six lawyers from the two firms lodged complaints with the Law Society.

A disciplinary tribunal was appointed to formally investigate some of the complaints.

The tribunal found her guilty of two charges, but dismissed a charge relating to certain court filings she made.

In January, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in his speech at the opening of the legal year ceremony that there has been a noticeable rise in breaches of ethics and professional standards by lawyers.

He noted the rising number of disciplinary tribunals over the years: 12 were appointed in 2018 to formally investigate complaints against lawyers, 13 in 2019, 16 in 2020, 28 in 2021 and 25 in 2022.

The Chief Justice said that those in the profession must act together to guard against a drop in standards.