The Law Society of Singapore v Singham M Dennis[2000] SGDSC 7

Tribunal: Disciplinary Committee

1. Mr Dennis Mahendran Singham ("the Respondent") is an advocate and solicitor of some 25 years'
standing. He is now a partner in the firm of Dennis Singham Teresa Chan & Partners.

2. It is alleged on the part of the Law Society that sexual encounters took place between the
Respondent and Ms Leong while the Respondent stood in a professional relationship with her. In the
event, the Respondent was charged before this Committee as follows (the alternative charge having
been added after the commencement of the hearing):

CHARGE

4. Dennis is guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties within the
meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,1997 Revised Edition) in that he did
carry on a sexual relationship with one Angela Leong, in which firm he was a Partner sometime
between 20th April 1995 and the 18th October 1995 during which period he was the solicitor having
the conduct of divorce proceedings instituted in the High Court by the said Angela Leong .

ALTERNATIVE CHARGE

5. Dennis is guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the
Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of
the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,1997 Revised Edition) in that he did carry on a sexual relationship
with one Angela Leong in which firm he was a Partner sometime between the 20th April 1995 and the
18th October 1995 during which period he was the solicitor having the conduct of divorce proceedings
instituted in the High Court by the said Angela Leong.

10. The learned Judicial Commissioner's direction resulted in the appointment of this Disciplinary
Committee, to hear and investigate the charges against the Respondent referred to above.

THE CASE FOR THE LAW SOCIETY

11. The Law Society's case was that the Respondent had conduct of the proceedings for the dissolution
of Ms Leong's marriage, instituted by Rodyk & Davidson on her behalf, and that the Respondent
carried on a sexual relationship with Ms Leong while a solicitor and client relationship was in existence
between them.

THE ISSUES IN THIS INQUIRY

MS LEONG'S EVIDENCE

14. Ms Leong's evidence in chief was by way of an affidavit ("the second affidavit"). The exhibits
referred to in this section are those annexed to the second affidavit. This, essentially, was Ms Leong's
story :

15. She first met the Respondent on the 10th April, in his office. She retained him as her solicitor for
the purposes of instituting divorce proceedings against Peter Yeo, and gave him instructions concerning
the state of her marriage. A second meeting was held two days later, for the purposes of drafting the
petition.
16. Following the meeting, the Respondent gave Ms Leong a lift back to her office, during the course
of which he suggested that Ms Leong should use his chauffeur to drive her mother to hospital for twice
weekly dialysis.

17. A second meeting took place between Ms Leong and the Respondent a few mornings later, for the
purpose of drafting the petition. The Respondent invited Ms Leong to lunch. The Respondent was
attentive, spoke about his own marital problems, and paid the bill for the lunch.

18. A third meeting was then held. All three meetings took place between the 10th and 19th April. The
Respondent again invited Ms Leong to lunch, this time at an expensive Italian restaurant. The
Respondent remarked that he would not have considered taking his wife to such a restaurant. He
professed that he had been attracted to Ms Leong from the day she had first walked into his office. As
they left the restaurant, the Respondent kissed Ms Leong on the cheek. Shortly after this meeting, the
Respondent went to England for a brief visit. While there he telephoned Ms Leong, but she was out.
After his return to Singapore the Respondent repeatedly invited Ms Leong out for drinks at the
American Club. This became a daily routine.

47. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the affirmative.

Whether a sexual relationship between the Respondent and Ms Leong took place while the Respondent
was Ms Leong's solicitor.

48. The Committee answers this issue in the affirmative. It concluded, on the basis of Ms Leong's
evidence, which the Committee accepted, and exhibits AL-4 and AL-5 above, that the Respondent and
Ms Leong had sex for the first time during their stay at the Shangri-la Hotel in Kuala Lumpur between
the 12th and 15th May and again, at the same venue, from the 25th to 29th May. The Committee
rejected, as wholly incredible, the Respondent's evidence that sexual relations only began after the
decree nisi was pronounced on the 6th July.

49. Furthermore, the Committee accepted Ms Leong's evidence that, following the move to No. 53
Jalan Puteh Jemah, she and the Respondent had sexual relations on numerous occasions at that address
and, both before and after the move, in the Respondent's parked car in the Botanical Gardens.

50. The Respondent admits to having had sexual relations with Ms Leong after the 6th July, but claims
that the relationship at this level only began after the solicitor and client relationship had ceased to
subsist. The Committee rejects that assertion.

51. The Committee finds as a fact that sexual relations took place between the Respondent and Ms
Leong on a regular basis between Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute, in Singapore, Pangkor Laut, Paris
and London. The Committee concludes, as a matter of law, that a relationship of solicitor and client
subsisted between the Respondent and Ms Leong throughout this period.

55. The Committee was left in no doubt, as a matter of fact, that sexual relations took place between the
Respondent and Ms Leong while the Respondent was Ms Leong's solicitor and incidentally but
importantly, that as a matter of law and fact, the relationship occurred while Ms Leong's marriage to
Peter Yeo continued to subsist.

56. Issue 2 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

Whether the Respondent's conduct, in engaging in a sexual relationship with Ms Leong while he was
her solicitor, amounted to grossly improper conduct within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Act;
alternatively, whether by reason of such conduct the Respondent was guilty of misconduct unbefitting
an advocate and solicitor, within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

63. While it is true to say that the sexual relations which took place between the Respondent and Ms
Leong were consensual, the Committee accepted Ms Leong's evidence to the effect that the Respondent
lavished attention and blandishments on her at a time when she was emotionally vulnerable. The
Committee does not regard it as necessary or proper to determine whether the Respondent deliberately
stood in the way of a reconciliation between Ms Leong and her then husband, since this factor does not
constitute an element of the charge, or of the amended charge.

64. Suffice it to say that it was open to Ms Leong, at anytime after she caused proceedings to be
commenced against her husband, to change her mind, relent and take him back. The Respondent
compromised Ms Leong's freedom to exercise her mind in this way. He may have concluded that Ms
Leong had shut the door to reconciliation (she had, for example, made a police report against Peter
Yeo), but that was not a judgment it was proper for the Respondent to make. Having made it, he set
about wooing Ms Leong to the point of declaring, at a time when her marriage to Peter Yeo still
subsisted, that she would one day become his wife. That, in the view of this Committee, amounted to
conduct on the part of the Respondent which was wholly unacceptable of an advocate and solicitor, in
that he placed his personal interests in direct conflict with the possible interests or wishes of Ms Leong.
After all, she had once before been reconciled with Peter Yeo. Up until the day before the Decree Nisi
was pronounced, Peter Yeo was begging for a reconciliation. Had it not been for the Respondent's all-
pervading presence, a reconciliation might have come about again. After all, Ms Leong had no
children, and that her closest relative was a seriously ailing mother.

65. Accordingly, we had no hesitation in concluding that the Respondent was guilty of a disciplinable
offence. The question which exercised our minds was whether his behaviour should rightly be
described as "grossly improper', in the sense of flagrantly wrong; or whether his conduct might more
aptly be represented as "unbecoming", in the sense of being unsuitable or inappropriate.

66. After considerable deliberation, we took the view that, in all the circumstances, the Respondent's
conduct was grossly improper. In so concluding we took into account the fact that, in our assessment,
Ms Leong is an intelligent, articulate and resourceful woman who ultimately turned her unfortunate
experience with the Respondent to her financial advantage. We were nevertheless left in no doubt that
the Respondent deliberately set out to seduce Ms Leong at a time when she was relatively defenceless,
and that he did so while she remained married, and thus in a position to effect a reconciliation with
Peter Yeo, if she was so minded. As a senior lawyer of some 25 years' standing, the Respondent would
have been aware that his professional duty throughout this period was to act solely in Ms Leong's
interests. He manifestly failed to do so.

67. In the event, we answer the third issue in the affirmative and determine that the Respondent is
guilty of the charge of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties under
section 83(2)(b) of the Act