Chandra Mohan Rethnam

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The Law Society brought disciplinary applications against two advocates and solicitors (Mr Seah, acting for the Liquidators/appellants, and Mr Mohan, acting for Metax/respondent) arising from CA 146. After settling the underlying Suit 965, the parties and counsel entered into a Settlement Agreement that scripted calibrated responses to conceal the settlement from the Court of Appeal unless directly queried, thereby allowing an academic appeal to proceed before a five-judge coram and misleading the court. The Court of Three Judges found both had acted dishonestly by knowingly misleading the Court of Appeal (giving the impression of a live dispute) and breached their duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice. Though dishonesty undermining the administration of justice ordinarily attracts presumptive striking off, the court found exceptional facts (no personal/financial gain, no loss caused, isolated incident, no character defect, misguided attempt to balance conflicting duties) warranting a lesser sanction. Both were suspended for three years and ordered to pay costs (Mr Seah SGD 10,000; Mr Mohan SGD 16,000).

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Avoid wasting the court's time
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Seniority and experience at the bar (Mr Seah ~14 years; Mr Mohan ~28 years)
• Both were experienced litigators who knew courts do not hear academic/hypothetical disputes
• Elaborate, premeditated scheme in the Settlement Agreement over six months of negotiations with calibrated/scripted responses to anticipated court queries designed to conceal the settlement unless directly asked
• Ample time to reconsider before concluding the Settlement Agreement

Mitigating factors:

• Dishonesty did not attest to a character defect; conduct stemmed from lapses of judgment in balancing duty to client against duty to court
• No personal or financial gain (both acted pro bono / had stopped charging fees)
• No loss caused to the parties or third parties
• Unblemished record; misconduct an isolated incident out of character
• Genuine, though misguided, attempt to balance duties to clients and court; Mr Mohan inserted a clause allowing disclosure of the settlement; Mr Seah reminded his team of duty to court
• Remorse and apologies (particularly Mr Seah); character references
• Mr Seah conceded liability at the start of the hearing

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=26000", "unverified_suspension_months=36"]