賴文俊律師專業失當罪成 - Solicitor Lai Man Chun Anthony Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Lawyer Anthony Lai Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 賴文俊事務律師專業失當罪成

Findings and order:
17 June 2011

On 29 February 2008, the Respondent, Solicitor Anthony Lai, received instructions from his client to pursue an employee compensation claim in District Court proceedings (‘the Case’). The Case commenced on 22 July 2008.

 His client applied for legal aid on 14 January 2009 and legal aid was granted on 23 March 2009. No counsel was assigned by the Director of Legal Aid (DLA).

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaints against the Solicitor Anthony M C Lai proved on his own admission:

1. Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (SPR) in that the Respondent failed to consult and seek prior approval from the DLA to instruct counsel to attend two hearings on 24 April and 14 August 2009 in the Case.
2. Breach of Rule 2(f) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to inform the Court in the Case that counsel had been instructed to attend the hearing on 24 April 2009 without prior approval by the DLA.
3. Breach of Rule 2(d) and (f) of the SPR in that the Respondent improperly instructed counsel to ask for legal aid costs order during the 24 April 2009 hearing in which the Court ordered that the costs of the hearing be in the cause, with Legal Aid taxation of his client’s costs but with no certificate for counsel.
4. Breach of Rule 2(d) of the SPR and Principles 5.12 and 5.17 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to inform his client that the DLA had not assigned counsel to the Case or authorised the instructing of counsel for the Case.

The Tribunal commented that the conduct of the Respondent upset the legal aid system and had caused grave concern of the Judge in the Case and was undesirable in the public image of the profession. Whilst the Tribunal believed that it was not likely that the Respondent would repeat the same breaches in the future, it considered that appropriate censure should be imposed for his conduct.

The Tribunal, having considered the mitigation of Solicitor Lai Man Chun Anthony, ordered that:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined HK$40,000.00; and
3. the Respondent pay the costs of these proceedings in the sum of HK$126,628 made up of the costs of the Clerk (HK$20,000), the Law Society (HK$34,836) and the Prosecutor (HK$53,632).

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=428&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=428&c=121)