Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/286231/convicted-lawyer-faces-bar-inquiry
(South China Morning Post, June 25th, 1999, Alison Smith)
Convicted Lawyer Faces Bar Inquiry
Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) has stepped down from the Bar Council pending an investigation that could lead to disciplinary proceedings.
Russell Coleman, 36, is under investigation by an independent tribunal after he failed to tell the Bar Association's executive committee of his conviction this month for a criminal offence.
Association Chairman Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC said yesterday he was 'a little upset' after learning of the barrister's conviction by reading about it in the South China Morning Post.
'He told me he was naturally a little embarrassed to reveal the matter to me . . . He thought the conviction wouldn't attract media attention,' Mr Tong said.
Mr Coleman is among nine elected members of the Bar Council - the body appointed to uphold standards of professional conduct and discipline among barristers.
He confirmed last night that he had not offered to resign but had agreed to step down while the investigation takes place.
'As you know, I have agreed pending the usual processes, not to take part in Bar Council and subcommittee deliberations,' he said.
Senior Counsel Ronny Tong SC said Russell Coleman only offered to step down after he broached the matter outside the last meeting of the executive committee.
'I learned on the morning of the Friday and I was a little bit unprepared. When it was revealed in the SCMP, the name was Langley Coleman and I was frantically trying to get hold of him to find out what the position was,' he said. 'I think he quite naively thought the matter wouldn't attract attention.' Mr Coleman was fined $4,000 in Western Court on June 3 for helping his domestic helper work as a caretaker - an offence under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Immigration Ordinance.
The name on the charge sheet was Langley Coleman, Russell Adam. Mr Coleman is known professionally as Russell Coleman but he said Langley was in the full name on his identity card.
Under association rules, barristers convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty or 'which may bring the profession into disrepute' must report the conviction to the Bar Council.
There have been 12 complaints against barristers lodged so far this year and of those, three were referred to the tribunal - an independent panel of three people who investigate and act as prosecutors if necessary.
2013年6月10日 星期一
Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) Found to Have Deceived the University of Hong Kong
Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university
(South China Morning Post, February 12, 2000, Cliff Buddle)
Barrister Barred for Deceiving University
Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.
George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.
The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.
Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.
'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.
'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.
'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.
Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.
He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.
The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.
He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.
Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.
He could not be contacted for comment.
_______________________________________________________________________
Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835
(蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日之報導)
前大狀以堂費扣稅敗訴
曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈，早年申請研究生獎學金時，虛報有一級榮譽學士學位，兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾，被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守，被停牌半年，兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費，他指已付堂費可扣稅，獲稅務上訴委員會接納，稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直，推翻委員會的決定。
參選區議會兩落敗
涉案堂費共75萬元，00至03年支付予大律師公會，稅務局長評估利得稅後，朱奉慈要求委員會覆核，委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支，推翻原本的評稅。
法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞，接納稅務局長上訴指，單純與納稅人業務有關的開支，並不足以視為可扣除開支，必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅，委員會犯了法律錯誤，遂恢復原本的評稅。
現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師，97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時，虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽，又違反向校方的承諾，一邊繼續執業做大律師，一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金，00年經紀律聆訊，被裁定六項指控成立，朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會，均告落敗。
(South China Morning Post, February 12, 2000, Cliff Buddle)
Barrister Barred for Deceiving University
Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.
George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.
The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.
Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.
'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.
'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.
'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.
Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.
He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.
The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.
He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.
Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.
He could not be contacted for comment.
_______________________________________________________________________
Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835
(蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日之報導)
前大狀以堂費扣稅敗訴
曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈，早年申請研究生獎學金時，虛報有一級榮譽學士學位，兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾，被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守，被停牌半年，兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費，他指已付堂費可扣稅，獲稅務上訴委員會接納，稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直，推翻委員會的決定。
參選區議會兩落敗
涉案堂費共75萬元，00至03年支付予大律師公會，稅務局長評估利得稅後，朱奉慈要求委員會覆核，委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支，推翻原本的評稅。
法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞，接納稅務局長上訴指，單純與納稅人業務有關的開支，並不足以視為可扣除開支，必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅，委員會犯了法律錯誤，遂恢復原本的評稅。
現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師，97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時，虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽，又違反向校方的承諾，一邊繼續執業做大律師，一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金，00年經紀律聆訊，被裁定六項指控成立，朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會，均告落敗。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)