Lawyer Christopher de Souza faces attainable disciplinary motion for improper skilled conduct

SINGAPORE: Lawyer Christopher de Souza faces attainable disciplinary motion for improper conduct after a tribunal discovered that he assisted his consumer in suppressing proof by getting ready and submitting an affidavit that unnoticed sure info.

In its findings printed on Monday (Dec 5), the disciplinary tribunal stated that the data, if included, would have highlighted that his consumer had breached undertakings by utilizing confidential info and paperwork.

This info and paperwork have been obtained as a consequence of search orders and have been for use just for a Excessive Court docket swimsuit, however the consumer as an alternative used them to file police and different stories towards events the consumer was suing.

The Legislation Society of Singapore (LawSoc) had most popular 5 fees towards Mr de Souza – a Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC and a Deputy Speaker of Parliament – however a disciplinary tribunal discovered that just one cost was made out.

The 5 fees pertain to Mr de Souza’s conduct whereas he was performing in his capability as a associate of regulation agency Lee & Lee, representing Amber Compounding Pharmacy and Amber Laboratories in a Excessive Court docket swimsuit.

In a judgment printed on Monday, the tribunal discovered that there was reason behind ample gravity for disciplinary motion towards Mr de Souza for the fourth cost of helping his consumer in suppressing proof.

In response to queries from CNA, Mr de Souza’s attorneys stated “there isn’t any query” that their consumer had acted with “utmost integrity within the conduct of this matter always”.

Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng and affiliate Calvin Ong of WongPartnership stated: “4 of the 5 fees have been dismissed.

“As regards the remaining cost, this can be a matter now earlier than the Court docket of Three Judges and it isn’t acceptable for us to touch upon the deserves at this juncture. Suffice to say that we are going to strenuously resist it and argue that it too needs to be dismissed.”

WHAT HAPPENED

Amber launched a Excessive Court docket swimsuit in February 2018 towards its former worker, Priscilla Lim Suk Ling, and her new firm, UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy.

Amber was represented at first by Dodwell & Co, whose attorneys utilized for search orders to acquire paperwork and data from the defendants.

The search orders have been granted with the categorical endeavor that Amber was to not use any of the data or paperwork obtained apart from the court docket proceedings within the Excessive Court docket swimsuit. 

In April 2018, a complete of 116,298 paperwork have been seized pursuant to the search orders. 

Amber reviewed the paperwork and thought that a few of them pointed to severe legal offences on the a part of the defendants. In a breach of their undertakings, Amber made three stories in 2018 to the Ministry of Manpower, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the Singapore Police Pressure, disclosing 10 paperwork.

This use of paperwork and data occurred earlier than Mr de Souza and Lee & Lee took over the case. 

Round November 2018, Lee & Lee was approached to behave for Amber in relation to stories made to the police and different authorities. Inner correspondence at Lee & Lee reveals that Mr de Souza and his colleagues knew in regards to the breach.

An e-mail despatched by Lee & Lee to Amber on Dec 5, 2018, suggested the latter to take speedy steps to treatment it.

The 5 fees most popular towards Mr de Souza come up from actions taken between Dec 3, 2018, and Jan 28, 2019. The costs allege, amongst different issues, that he knowingly misled or tried to mislead the court docket and opposing counsel, by failing to tell the court docket of Amber’s prior breaches of undertakings to not disclose sure paperwork.

The disciplinary tribunal discovered that 4 of the 5 fees weren’t made out. Solely the fourth cost was made out, with the tribunal calling this the “most severe cost”. 

This cost alleges that Mr de Souza was a celebration to and assisted Amber in suppressing proof. This was within the preparation and submitting of an affidavit of Amber’s consultant Samuel Sudesh Thaddeus, which didn’t exhibit sure stories and supporting paperwork that might have revealed Amber’s breaches.

The tribunal discovered that Mr de Souza’s actions amounted to improper conduct and apply. Nonetheless, it accepted that he didn’t provoke or encourage the non-disclosure.

The tribunal acknowledged that Mr de Souza insisted that Amber and Samuel make full disclosure.

“Nonetheless, given the respondent’s admitted cognisance of the significance of full and frank disclosure, his failure to make sure that such disclosure was made just isn’t exculpated by the conduct of the consumer,” stated the tribunal.

“We recognize that it’s hardest for a authorized practitioner to do his responsibility when the consumer is tough, however it’s in such circumstances that the authorized practitioner should cleave to his or her duties to the court docket.”

HOW THE CASE CAME TO LIGHT

The improper conduct was unearthed following observations made by the Court docket of Enchantment when the defendants launched appeals towards Amber.

The case was then referred to an Inquiry Committee. In July 2021, the committee discovered that Mr de Souza breached his paramount responsibility to the court docket and beneficial that he be fined S$2,000.

The committee didn’t type the view {that a} formal investigation by a disciplinary tribunal was mandatory.

Nonetheless, the Council of the Legislation Society disagreed and utilized to the Chief Justice for a disciplinary tribunal to be arrange. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon appointed the tribunal to listen to and examine the matter in November 2021.

After discovering that one of many fees towards Mr de Souza was made out, the tribunal ordered him to pay prices of S$18,000 to LawSoc, in addition to the society’s affordable disbursements.

The matter of whether or not any sanction will likely be imposed on Mr de Souza will likely be determined in a subsequent listening to. Potential sanctions underneath the Authorized Occupation Act vary from suspension, fines and being struck off the roll.