Khushvinder Singh Chopra

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

The Law Society brought show-cause proceedings against Khushvinder Singh Chopra, a solicitor of four years' standing, arising from his attempt to purchase a client's property (91 Jalan Seaview) while acting as the vendors' solicitor. He negotiated a low price, lodged caveats, purported to exercise an option unsigned by the principal owner, and later procured the vendors to sign a supplementary agreement and a one-sided statutory declaration (affirming the transaction and absolving him of impropriety) without informing their solicitors or ensuring independent advice. The Court of Three Judges upheld the Disciplinary Committee's findings on charges B and C of grossly improper conduct under s 83(2)(h). Charge A was not upheld because the Council had proceeded under the wrong statutory provision (s 94(3) instead of s 97). The DC had expressly declined to impute dishonesty on charge A, and the court framed the misconduct as grossly improper conduct not necessarily requiring fraud or dishonesty, though it described his conduct as cunning and deceitful. The court ordered that he be struck off the roll. No fine or costs order was stated.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Knowingly placed himself in a position of aggravated conflict of interest and preferred his own interests over his clients
• Continued to press the purchase after knowing the complainant did not wish to sell to him
• Knew the vendors were represented by other solicitors yet dealt with them directly without informing those solicitors
• Used his legal knowledge to procure a sworn statutory declaration for his own personal and professional advantage and to stifle/influence apprehended disciplinary proceedings
• Court described his conduct as cunning and deceitful, revealing a serious defect in character
• As an officer of the court, breach engaged public interest and administration of justice

Mitigating factors:

• Only about four years in practice at the material time
• Described as inexperienced and naive
• Had incurred a number of liabilities as a result of the Court of Appeal's decision

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]