Seah Zhen Wei Paul

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

The Law Society brought two applications against two opposing counsel who, after settling High Court Suit 965, allowed an appeal (CA 146) that had thereby become academic to proceed before a five-judge Court of Appeal without disclosing the settlement, only revealing it when directly queried. The Settlement Agreement contained calibrated responses designed to avoid volunteering the fact of settlement. The Court of Three Judges found both respondents had acted dishonestly and knowingly misled the Court of Appeal, breaching their paramount duty of candour to the court and their duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice, undermining the administration of justice. Although dishonesty affecting the administration of justice presumptively warrants striking off, the court held exceptional facts (no character defect, no personal/financial gain, pro bono representation, no loss, unblemished records, and a genuine but failed attempt to balance duties) rendered striking off disproportionate. Both were suspended three years. Costs of S$10,000 (Seah) and S$16,000 (Mohan) were ordered payable to the Law Society.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Personal probity and fitness to practise

Aggravating factors:

• Seniority and experience at the bar (Mr Seah ~14 years, Mr Mohan ~28 years) - should have known academic appeals are not entertained
• Ample time (six months of negotiations) to reconsider before concluding the Settlement Agreement
• Elaborate, scripted scheme in the Settlement Agreement calibrated to avoid disclosing the settlement to the court unless directly queried

Mitigating factors:

• No personal or financial gain - both acted pro bono/had stopped charging fees
• Dishonesty did not reveal a character defect; product of misjudgment in balancing duties to client and court
• Conduct did not go beyond non-disclosure; no fabrication of facts or evidence
• Unblemished records; isolated, out-of-character incident
• No loss caused to clients or third parties
• Remorse and apologies (Mr Seah conceded liability); Mr Mohan inserted a clause preserving ability to disclose to the court
• Genuine but failed attempt to balance duty to client with duty to court

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