麥東成律師專業失當罪成 (Solicitor Alrick Mak Tung Shing Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Alrick Mak Tung Shing Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 事務律師麥東成專業失當罪成

Findings and order:
7 March 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two Complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission:

Complaint 3Breach of Principle 4.01 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to keep his clients informed in relation to the incurring of costs in relation to a Winding Up Proceedings.

Complaint 6A (alternative to Complaints 4, 5 and 6)Breach of Principle 4.16 of the Guide and s 64 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent entered into a contingency fee arrangement with his clients for acting in contentious proceedings.

By consent of the parties, Complaints 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not proceeded with.

On 7 March 2011, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent:

1. be censured;
2. in relation to Complaint 3, be fined the sum of HK$5000;
3. in relation to Complaint 6A, be fined the sum of HK$300,000;
4. to pay 57% of the Applicant’s costs of investigation and costs of these proceedings; and
5. to pay the costs of the Clerk.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=431&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=431&c=121)

Solicitor Clifton Wong Guilty of Professional Misconduct (黃澤林律師專業失當罪成)

事務律師黃澤林專業失當罪成 (Lawyer Clifton Wong Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Findings and order:
27 May 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaint against the Respondent Solicitor Clifton Wong proved on his own admission:

Breach of Principle 14.02 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Vol 1, 2nd Edition in that the Respondent, being a partner of Messrs Li, Wong, Lam & WI Cheung and the solicitor-in-charge of a conveyancing transaction, failed to honour the undertaking to send to the vendor’s solicitors the conveyancing documents as stated in the letter from the vendors’ solicitors dated 29 September 2009 within the stipulated time which was imposed on him in the said letter.

The Tribunal, having considered: (i) that the Respondent had expressed no remorse in his breach of the undertaking and a heavy fine may not change his attitude in honouring undertakings; and (ii) his admission of the charge and his plea of mitigation, ordered that:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined HK$20,000.00;
3. with effect from 2 July 2011, the Respondent’s practice as a solicitor be subject to the following conditions for two years:
   1. that he cannot practise as a sole proprietor or partner of a solicitors firm; and
   2. that his practice as a solicitor be subject to the supervision of a full-time solicitor of no less than 15 years’ standing and also of good standing.
4. the Respondent pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Clerk and the Law Society in investigating into the matter, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party-and-party basis.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=430&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=430&c=121)

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)

鄭子駒律師專業失當罪成 - Solicitor T K Cheng Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Lawyer Cheng Tze Kui Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 事務律師鄭子駒專業失當罪成

 

Findings and order:
6 September 2011

The Respondent, at all the material times, was the sole proprietor of Messrs TK Cheng & Co (‘the Firm’) and the Firm had two offices with the main office at Mongkok (‘Mongkok Office’) and a branch office at Central, Hong Kong (‘Hong Kong Office’).

On 18 May 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following 11 complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission:

1st ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 27 April 2006, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Hong Kong Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Mongkok Office on behalf of clients of Hong Kong Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Hong Kong Office resulting in a debit balance of HK$324,889 recorded under ‘TEMP-HK OFFICE CLT’.

2nd ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 27 April 2006, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Mongkok Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Hong Kong Office on behalf of clients of Mongkok Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Mongkok Office resulting in a credit balance of HK$246,043.06 recorded under ‘MK-CLT’S A/C’.

3rd ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 29 January 2007 had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Hong Kong Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Mongkok Office on behalf of clients of Hong Kong Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Hong Kong Office resulting in a debit balance of HK$308,729 recorded under ‘TEMP-HK OFFICE CLT’.

4th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that, on 29 January 2007, the total clients’ money recorded in the client ledgers was greater than the total clients’ money recorded in the clients’ cash books by HK$733,707.

5th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, failed to ensure no debit balance occurred in clients’ account in the Mongkok Office. There were a total of 13 debit entries.

6th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Mongkok Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Hong Kong Office on behalf of clients of Mongkok Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Mongkok Office resulting in a credit balance of HK$508,145.95 recorded under ‘MK-CLT'S A/C’.

7th Complaint Breach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, failed to ensure no debit balance occurred in clients’ account in the Hong Kong Office. There were a total of five debit entries.

8th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) and 10(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, upon making 62 entries of transfer of money from the clients’ bank accounts in the total sum of HK$733,707 to the office bank account, failed to record any entries of transfer in the corresponding client ledgers and as a result the total clients’ money recorded in the client ledgers was greater than the total clients’ money recorded in the clients’ cash books by HK$733,707.

9th ComplaintThe Respondent, on 23 April 2007 was in persistent failure to comply with Principle 4.10 of the Guide and Rule 2(e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules in that the bills prepared by the Firm did not contain sufficient information to identify the matters to which the bills related or contain erroneous information.

10th ComplaintBreach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent had failed to deliver to the Council of the Law Society on or before 31 October 2006 an Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the accounting period from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006 and the said report was late for one year and 29 days.

11th ComplaintBreach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent had failed to deliver to the Council of the Law Society on or before 31 October 2008 an Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the accounting period from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008 and the said report was late for one month and 16 days.

The Tribunal, having considered the Respondent&’s mitigation, ordered that:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 1st Complaint;
3. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 2nd Complaint;
4. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 3rd Complaint;
5. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 4th Complaint;
6. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 5th Complaint;
7. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 6th Complaint;
8. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 7th Complaint;
9. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 8th Complaint;
10. the Respondent be fined HK$10,000 in relation to the 9th Complaint;
11. the Respondent be fined HK$10,000 in relation to the 10th Complaint;
12. the Respondent be fined HK$15,000 in relation to the 11th Complaint;
13. the Respondent is to pay the amounts above totalling HK$75,000 by monthly instalments with a first instalment of HK$5000 to be paid on 1 October 2011 and the balance of HK$70,000 by 14 monthly instalments of HK$5000 each to be paid on the first day of each month; and
14. the Respondent shall pay HK$160,000 to the Law Society and HK$27,000 to the Clerk in full and final settlement of costs of these proceedings, the said sum of HK$187,000 shall be paid by monthly instalments with a first instalment of HK$7000 be paid on 1 October 2011 and the balance of HK$180,000 by 18 monthly instalments of HK$10,000 each to be paid on the first day of each month. In the event that the Respondent fails to pay any instalment on time, the outstanding amount of costs becomes due and payable by him immediately.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=425&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=425&c=121)

Solicitor Jonathan Edward Spencer Rostron Guilty of Professional Misconduct (羅思川律師專業失當罪成)

羅思川律師專業失當罪成 - Lawyer Jonathan Rostron Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Reasons and order:
29 August 2011

The Hong Kong Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two complaints against the Solicitor Jonathan Rostron proved:

1st Complaint Breach of Rule 10 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent had failed to keep properly written up books and accounts for his firm.

2nd ComplaintBreach of Rule 11 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent had failed to produce his firm’s books and accounts to the Monitoring Accountants appointed by the Council for inspection.

The Tribunal ordered that:

1. For the 1st complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$50,000.
2. For the 2nd complaint, the Respondent be suspended for a period of three years and be subject to the condition to practice that on his resuming practice as a solicitor, for the first three years, he cannot do so as a sole-proprietor or partner of any solicitors firm and can only do so as an employed solicitor under the supervision of a solicitor of no less than 10 years’ active post-qualification experience in Hong Kong.
3. Half of the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Clerk, be borne and paid for by the Respondent, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party-and-party basis.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=424&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=424&c=121)

譚大偉律師專業失當罪成 (Solicitor Tam Tai Wai Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Tam Tai Wai Guilty of Professional Misconduct (譚大偉律師專業失當罪成)

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﹕

1. 答辯人須受譴責﹔
2. 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﹔
3. 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:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. 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; 
3. 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 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=1733&c=121)
(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=1733&c=121)

畢保麒律師, 馮樹華律師 及 利炳輝律師專業失當罪成 (Solicitors Bruke, Fung & Li Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Burke Patrick Michael (畢保麒律師) (R1) Lawyer Fung Shu Wah (馮樹華律師) (R2) Lawyer Li Ping Fai Tommy (利炳輝律師) (R3)

Hearing dates: 8 March 2011, 2 June 2011 and 4 August 2011
Findings and order: 19 October 2011
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two Complaints against the Respondents proved on their own admissions:

The 1st Complaint
Breaches of s 8 of the LPO, Rule 8 of the ARR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide in that the Respondents, being the three proprietors of Messrs Burke, Fung & Li ('the Closed Firm'), failed to provide the final accountant's report within six months of the Closed Firm ceasing business (the Closed Firm ceased practice on 30 September 2007).

The 2nd Complaint
Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR in that the conduct of the Respondents compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair their own reputation or the reputation of the profession and a proper standard of work.

Having considered the Respondents' respective mitigation submissions (including the fact that the Closed Firm had filed its final accountant's report with the Law Society on 12 July 2011), the Tribunal ordered that:

(a) all the Respondents be censured;
(b) each Respondent be fined a sum of HK$60,000 for the 1st and 2nd Complaints; and
(c) all costs of these proceedings and prior investigation including the costs of the Clerk, the Prosecutor and the Law Society, be borne by the Respondents and to be taxed on party and party basis if not agreed.

(Source: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=1814&c=121)