Seah Zhen Wei Paul

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

The Law Society brought disciplinary applications against Mr Seah (counsel for the appellant Liquidators) and Mr Mohan (counsel for the respondent Metax) arising from CA 146. After settling the underlying Suit 965, the Respondents allowed the appeal to proceed before a five-judge Court of Appeal without disclosing the settlement, which had rendered the appeal academic, only revealing it when directly questioned. The Court of Three Judges found both had acted dishonestly by knowingly misleading the Court of Appeal, breaching their duty of candour and duty to assist in the administration of justice. The court held both equally culpable (disagreeing with the DT which found Mr Mohan less culpable), finding Mr Mohan's conduct amounted to improper conduct under s 83(2)(b). Although dishonesty undermining the administration of justice presumptively warrants striking off, the court found exceptional facts (no character defect, no personal/financial gain, no loss caused, unblemished records, conflict of duties leading to lapse of judgment) rebutted the presumption. Both were suspended three years each. Mr Seah ordered to pay $10,000 costs; Mr Mohan $16,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Overriding duty to the court
• Not mislead the court
• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• Not mislead third parties or opponents

Aggravating factors:

• Seniority and experience at the bar (Mr Seah 14 years, Mr Mohan ~28 years)
• Elaborate/premeditated scheme in the Settlement Agreement to suppress disclosure over six months of negotiations
• Deliberate suppression of settlement, disclosed only when directly queried by the Court
• Wasted time and resources of a five-judge coram of the Court of Appeal

Mitigating factors:

• Dishonesty did not attest to a character defect
• No personal or financial gain (both acted pro bono / had stopped charging fees)
• No loss caused to parties or third parties
• Unblemished records; misconduct an isolated incident out of character
• Conflict arose from attempting to balance duties to clients and court (lapse of judgment)
• Remorse and apologies (particularly Mr Seah); Mr Seah reminded team of duty to court; Mr Mohan inserted a clause permitting disclosure
• Mr Seah's concession on liability at start of hearing