Chandra Mohan Rethnam

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 liquidator-appellants) and Mr Mohan (counsel for the respondent) 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 rendered the appeal academic), pursuant to a settlement agreement scripting calibrated responses to avoid disclosure unless directly queried. The Court of Three Judges found both had knowingly misled the Court of Appeal and acted dishonestly, breaching their duty of candour and duty to assist in the administration of justice under ss 83(2)(b) and (h) of the LPA and r 9 PCR. The court held both equally culpable (rejecting the DT's view that Mohan was less culpable, finding his conduct within s 83(2)(b)). Although dishonesty undermining the administration of justice presumptively warrants striking off, the court found truly exceptional mitigating facts (no personal/financial gain, pro bono work, no character defect, unblemished records, no loss caused, and a genuine but failed attempt to balance conflicting duties) rendering striking off disproportionate. Each was suspended three years. Costs of S$10,000 (Seah) and S$16,000 (Mohan) were ordered payable to the Law Society.

Duties found breached:

• Overriding duty to the court
• Not mislead the court
• Avoid wasting the court's time
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents

Aggravating factors:

• Seniority and extensive experience at the bar (Mr Seah ~14 years; Mr Mohan ~28 years)
• Premeditation - the scheme was the product of protracted negotiations over about six months
• Elaborate, calibrated terms in the Settlement Agreement designed to avoid disclosing the settlement unless directly queried
• Dishonesty that undermined the administration of justice by misleading the Court of Appeal

Mitigating factors:

• No personal or financial gain (both acted pro bono / had stopped charging fees)
• Dishonesty did not attest to a character defect
• Unblemished records; isolated, out-of-character incident
• No loss caused to clients or third parties
• Remorse and apologies
• Conflict between duty to client and duty to court; misconduct stemmed from lapse of judgment in balancing duties
• Mr Mohan had inserted a clause preserving the right to disclose the settlement; Mr Seah reminded his team of duties to the court

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