Solicitor Jimmie K S Wong & Solicitor Henry Wai Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct (黃嘉錫律師 及 韋業顯律師專業失當罪成)

黃嘉錫律師 及 韋業顯律師專業失當罪成 (Lawyer Jimmie K S Wong & Lawyer Henry Wai Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Wong Ka Sek Jimmie (“the 1st Respondent”) and Lawyer Wai Yip Hin Henry (“the 2nd Respondent”) - 黃嘉錫律師 (第一答辯人) 及 韋業顯律師 (第二答辯人)

Hearing date: 11 January 2013

Findings and Order:
28 February 2013

A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaints against 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent proved on their own admission :

The 1st Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (“the SPR”), (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, Volume 1, Second Edition (“the Guide”) in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive during the period from 30 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Messrs. Jimmie K.S. Wong & Partners (formerly known as Jimmie K.S. Wong & Company)(“Firm Wong”).

The 2nd Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive during the period from 30 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 3rd Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a paralegal during the period from 1 September 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the paralegal whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 4th Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a trainee solicitor during the period from 30 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the trainee solicitor whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 5th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive (the same person as mentioned in the 1st Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work handled by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 6th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive (the same person as mentioned in the 2nd Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work done by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 7th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a paralegal (the same person as mentioned in the 3rd Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work handled by the paralegal whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 8th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a trainee solicitor (the same person as mentioned in the 4th Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work handled by the trainee solicitor whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

And upon hearing the mitigation submissions made on behalf of both Respondents, the Tribunal ordered, inter alia, that:

1. In respect of the 1st to 4th Complaints, the 1st Respondent be censured and fined $10,000;
2. In respect of the 5th to 8th Complaints, the 2nd Respondent be censured and fined $10,000; and
3. The 1st and 2nd Respondents do pay on an equal basis all costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs of the Prosecutor and the Tribunal Clerk and the costs of the Law Society’s prior investigation and enquiries, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

 

 

聆訊日期：
2013年1月11日

裁斷及命令：
2013年2月28日

律師紀律審裁組裁斷針對第一答辯人及第二答辯人作出的以下各項申訴在他們認罪下證明屬實：

第一項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃嘉錫律師事務所（前稱Jimmie K.S. Wong & Company）（下稱「黃行」）時，於2008年4月30日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名法律行政人員處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《執業律師規則》（下稱「《規則》」）第4條規則、(2)《香港律師專業操守指引》第二版第一冊（下稱「《指引》」）第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》第4.15條原則。

第二項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年4月30日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名法律行政人員處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第三項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月1日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名法律輔助人員處理的工作，與該名法律輔助人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第四項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年4月30日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名實習律師處理的工作，與該名實習律師分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第五項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名法律行政人員（於第一項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第六項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名法律行政人員（於第二項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第七項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名法律輔助人員（於第三項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名法律輔助人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第八項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名實習律師（於第四項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名實習律師分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

審裁組於聽取代表兩名答辯人作出的請求減輕判處陳詞後，作出以下命令（除其他事項外）：

1. 就第一至第四項申訴，對第一答辯人施以譴責，並罰款一萬元；
2. 就第五至第八項申訴，對第二答辯人施以譴責，並罰款一萬元；
3. 第一及第二答辯人須平均承擔有關法律程序的所有訟費及附帶費用，包括有關檢控員及審裁組書記的費用，以及律師會事先進行調查的費用，若未能就此等費用達成協議，則有待評定。

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=975&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=975&c=121)