Dhanwant Singh

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

The Law Society brought two charges against the respondent, a senior advocate and solicitor, for failing to supervise a long-serving conveyancing clerk (Mr Ram) at S K Kumar Law Practice LLP, which enabled Mr Ram to misappropriate client conveyancing money and cover it up via false extension-of-time letters and inaccurate updates. The DT found both charges proved and referred the matter to the Court as being of sufficient gravity. Both the Law Society and respondent argued there was no cause of sufficient gravity or that only a $15,000 penalty was warranted. The Court of Three Judges rejected this, finding total absence of supervision over almost five years amounted to serious misconduct with due cause established. No dishonesty was found against the respondent (its absence was held irrelevant/not mitigating). Considering the aggravating factors and comparing with Troy Yeo (four-year suspension), the Court imposed the maximum five-year suspension, to commence on his discharge from bankruptcy. Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the Law Society, and the DT's costs orders ($7,000 plus $500 disbursements) were to stand.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Total absence of supervision over Mr Ram for almost five years
• Respondent effectively allowed an unqualified conveyancing clerk to run conveyancing work as if he were a partner/qualified solicitor
• Client (Ms Wong/HBA) held long-standing misapprehension that Mr Ram was a qualified lawyer, which respondent failed to correct
• Nonchalant response to client's complaints on 28 October 2021; failed to investigate red flags including signing blank cheques
• Continued to refer new conveyancing work to Mr Ram despite complaints
• Senior lawyer (in practice since 1986), causing greater harm to public confidence
• Recent relevant antecedent (Dhanwant Singh (2019), penalty of $50,000 for conveyancing money misconduct)
• No remorse before the DT; contested charges on an unmeritorious defence
• Financial loss caused to client (HBA unable to recover $50,280 paid to firm)

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent's eventual concession before the Court not to contest the charges, acceptance that his conduct fell short, and expression of remorse

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_suspension_months=60"]