聆訊日期：
2013年3月12日，2013年6月6日
裁決及頒令：
2013年10月3日
根據答辯人所作的承認、經由答辯人和檢控人員簽署的「同意事實」以及由律師會呈交的證據，律師紀律審裁組(下稱「審裁組」)裁定三項針對答辯人的投訴全部證明成立。審裁組作出下述裁斷﹕
第一項投訴
違反《法律執業者條例》(第159章)第8AA條及《律師執業規則》第2(d)及(e)條,理由為答辯人未有遵守日期為2009年12月23日的查閱通知，該通知要求答辯人出示關於答辯人於2002年至2004年期間從高院民事訴訟2008年第2503號的各名原告人收取的各筆款項的所有收款紀錄(包括收據、憑單及分類帳)，以供查閱。
第二項投訴
違反《律師執業規則》第2(d)及(e)條，理由為答辯人未有完全遵守律師會理事會於2010年3月23日通過的決議,即未有立即採取步驟，把答辯人的姓名從該人獨資經營的譚大偉律師行(下稱「答辯人的律師行」)的所有客戶銀行帳戶的授權簽署人名列中移除，以及未有委任一名律師成為上述所有客戶銀行帳戶的唯一授權簽署人。
第三項投訴
違反《操守指引》原則6.04，理由為答辯人未有從速處理律師會藉着日期為2011年11月2日的信函而作出的查詢，該等查詢涉及要求答辯人就律師會對該人及答辯人的律師行進行的調查而提供進一步資料。
於2013年6月6日舉行的聆訊上，答辯人透過其代表大律師作出求情方面的陳詞。
審裁組下令﹕
- 答辯人須受譴責﹔
- 答辯人須支付下列罰款﹕(i)就第一項投訴,港幣30,000元﹔(ii)就第二項投訴,港幣10,000元﹔及(iii)就第三項投訴,港幣30,000元﹔
- 答辯人須支付本紀律程序的費用，包括律師會的調查費用、律師會的代表律師的費用及審裁組書記的費用﹔假如各方未能就該等費用的金額達成協議，則須按訴訟各方對評基準評定。
Hearing date:
12 March 2013, 6 June 2013
Findings and Order:
3 October 2013
Based on the Respondent’s admission, the Agreed Facts signed by the Respondent and the Prosecutor and the evidence presented by the Law Society, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that all three complaints were proved against the Respondent. The Tribunal’s findings were as follows: -
The 1st Complaint
Breach of Section 8AA of the LPO and Rule 2(d) & (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Notice of Inspection dated 23 December 2009 requiring him to produce for inspection all receipt records (including receipts, vouchers and ledgers) in relation to the various amounts received from the Plaintiffs in HCA 2503 of 2008 over the period from 2002 to 2004.
The 2nd Complaint
Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Council’s resolution on 23 March 2010 in full in that he had failed to take immediate steps to remove his name from the authorized bank signatories of all the client bank accounts of Messrs. John Ku, Tam & Ho of which he is the sole proprietor (the “Respondent’s firm”) and to appoint a solicitor as the sole signatory of all such client bank accounts.
The 3rd Complaint
Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to deal promptly with inquiries from the Law Society in its letter dated 2 November 2011 concerning the request for further information relating to the Law Society’s investigation against him and the Respondent’s firm.
At the hearing on 6 June 2013, there were mitigation submissions made on behalf of the Respondent by his Counsel.
The Tribunal ordered that:
12 March 2013, 6 June 2013
Findings and Order:
3 October 2013
Based on the Respondent’s admission, the Agreed Facts signed by the Respondent and the Prosecutor and the evidence presented by the Law Society, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that all three complaints were proved against the Respondent. The Tribunal’s findings were as follows: -
The 1st Complaint
Breach of Section 8AA of the LPO and Rule 2(d) & (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Notice of Inspection dated 23 December 2009 requiring him to produce for inspection all receipt records (including receipts, vouchers and ledgers) in relation to the various amounts received from the Plaintiffs in HCA 2503 of 2008 over the period from 2002 to 2004.
The 2nd Complaint
Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Council’s resolution on 23 March 2010 in full in that he had failed to take immediate steps to remove his name from the authorized bank signatories of all the client bank accounts of Messrs. John Ku, Tam & Ho of which he is the sole proprietor (the “Respondent’s firm”) and to appoint a solicitor as the sole signatory of all such client bank accounts.
The 3rd Complaint
Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to deal promptly with inquiries from the Law Society in its letter dated 2 November 2011 concerning the request for further information relating to the Law Society’s investigation against him and the Respondent’s firm.
At the hearing on 6 June 2013, there were mitigation submissions made on behalf of the Respondent by his Counsel.
The Tribunal ordered that:
- the Respondent be censured;
- the Respondent be fined: (i) HK$30,000 for the 1st Complaint; (ii) HK$10,000 for the 2nd Complaint; and (iii) HK$30,000 for the 3rd Complaint;
- the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of investigation by the Law Society, the Solicitor for the Law Society and the Clerk to the Tribunal, be paid by the Respondent, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed.
(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=1733&c=121)
沒有留言:
張貼留言