1 Mr Andrew John Hanam (“Mr Hanam”) is a legal practitioner who was of 18 years’ standing at the material time. He represented P&P Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd (“P&P”) in its dispute with Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd (“Kori”). Mr Krishnamoorthy Pugazendhi (“Mr Pugazendhi”) is the sole director and shareholder of P&P: at [1] and [2].

2 P&P’s dispute with Kori stemmed from unpaid invoices arising from two sub-contracts for the construction of Marina Bay Mass Rapid Transit Station. The first sub-contract was for the provision of manpower (the “Manpower Sub-Contract”) and the second was for the supply of steel fabrication works (the “Steel Fabrication Sub-Contract”). The dispute over the sub-contracts resulted in three sets of legal proceedings, HC/S 1255/2016 (“Suit 1255”), DC/DC 1043/2018 (“DC 1043”) and HC/S 1167/2017 (“Suit 1167”): at [4] to [5].

3 Suit 1255 was commenced on 25 November 2016. It pertained to a claim of $376,344.93 under the Manpower Sub-Contract and $893,273.66 under the Steel Fabrication Sub-Contract. These claims were based on invoices that had fallen due as of 25 November 2016 (“November 2016 Invoices”). Various interlocutory applications were filed in the course of Suit 1255, and notably, P&P was the party that ended up paying costs to Kori. The various interlocutory applications are set out in full in the Judgment (at [9] to [13]). Briefly, these included:

a. HC/SUM 431/2017 (“SUM 431”), which was Kori’s application against P&P to compel disclosure of documents referred to in P&P’s pleadings. P&P unsuccessfully objected to the application on the grounds of irrelevance and filed Registrar’s Appeal 44 of 2017 (“RA 44”) thereafter (at [9]).

b. HC/SUM 5237/2017 (“SUM 5237”), which was P&P’s application for third-party discovery against Taisei Corporation (“Taisei”) for production of documents. P&P eventually withdrew the application and paid costs to Taisei and Kori. In respect of the costs owing to Taisei, Taisei obtained a garnishee order against P&P. Mr Hanam then agreed on behalf of P&P on 6 April 2018 to pay Taisei the sum of $1,513.70 for the costs incurred by Taisei in obtaining the garnishee order (at [11]).

c. HC/SUM 5616/2017 (“SUM 5616”), which was P&P’s unsuccessful application for leave to call four additional witnesses (at [12]).

d. HC/SUM 1394/2018 (“SUM 1394”), which was P&P’s unsuccessful application for judgment based on a settlement agreement between P&P and Kori that was reached on the first day of trial in Suit 1255 (“Suit 1255 Settlement”) (at [8] and [13]).

4 To explain, on the first day of trial for Suit 1255 on 17 October 2017, an agreement was reached on P&P’s claim under the Manpower Sub-Contract and one of Kori’s counterclaims (“Suit 1255 Settlement”). However, the trial of Suit 1255 continued in respect of P&P’s claim under the Steel Fabrication Sub-Contract as well as Kori’s substantial counterclaim for approximately $719,000 (which was to be set off against a sum of approximately $129,000 that Kori owed to P&P). In relation to the Suit 1255 Settlement, Kori agreed to pay $236,731.48 to P&P subject to a reduction of $543.73 on account of Kori’s counterclaim. In total, Kori was to pay P&P a settlement sum of $236,187.75. However, there was no express agreement at the time on the timeframe for Kori to pay the settlement sum. Kori took the position that the settlement sum was payable only at the conclusion of Suit 1255 in respect of the outstanding disputes relating to the Steel Fabrication Sub-Contract. It is against this backdrop that P&P filed (a) SUM 1394 and DC 1043 in respect of the Suit 1255 Settlement; and (b) SUM 5237 and SUM 5616, both of which were related to the Steel Fabrication Sub-Contract.

5 DC 1043 was commenced by P&P on 9 April 2018 against Kori in respect of the Suit 1255 Settlement. This was on the same day that SUM 1394 had been dismissed as the settlement sum was not due for payment (at [10] and [15]). On 27 July 2018, Kori made an offer to settle (“OTS”) to P&P wherein Kori was to pay $236,187.75 within 14 days of the delivery of judgment in Suit 1255 (at [16]). On 31 December 2018, P&P obtained judgment in Suit 1255 in respect of the outstanding disputes under the Steel Fabrication Subcontract. On 11 January 2019, Kori made payment of the agreed sum under Suit 1255 Settlement. Thereafter, the only outstanding issue in DC 1043 pertained to interest on the Suit 1255 Settlement sum and costs payable by Kori. Kori made an OTS on 29 January 2019 for Kori to pay for half of the interest and parties to bear their own costs. This was rejected by Mr Pugazendhi and the matter proceeded to trial (at [17]). On 16 August 2019, the District Court found against P&P in DC 1043 and awarded costs order of about $20,000 in favour of Kori including indemnity costs for costs incurred after Kori’s second OTS (at [18]).

6 Suit 1167 was commenced by P&P on 11 December 2017 against Kori for further payment of amounts due under the Manpower Sub-Contract in the sum of $342,821.05. Initially, P&P sent a letter of demand on 23 December 2016 for 14 unpaid invoices in respect of workers supplied under the Manpower Sub-Contract for the period May 2016 to October 2016. Kori rejected the letter of demand on 29 December 2016 as the 14 invoices were not based on verified claims. Thereafter, P&P obtained some supporting documents and provided them to Kori in early October 2017. P&P sent another letter of demand on 20 October 2017. On 26 October 2017, Kori informed Mr Hanam that a “certification” of the claim amount had been carried out and requested P&P to issue an invoice for the sum of $342,821.05. After P&P sent a revised invoice dated 4 November 2017 for the sum of $342,821.05 (which was for a compromised sum), Kori maintained that it would not make payment until the resolution of Suit 1255. Suit 1167 was commenced thereafter for the compromised sum of $342,821.05 (at [23] to [24]). Following the commencement of Suit 1167, P&P unsuccessfully sought summary judgment against Kori (at [26]). P&P also issued an OTS to Kori for the sum of $350,000 in full and final settlement, plus interests and costs (at [27]). The High Court found in favour of P&P and ordered Kori to pay P&P the compromised sum plus interest and costs at [28]).

7 On 11 March 2020, Mr Pugazendhi lodged a complaint against Mr Hanam with the Law Society for, among other things, overcharging for the work done. A disciplinary tribunal (“DT”) was appointed to hear and investigate the allegation of overcharging (at [29] to [30]). The Law Society’s initial Statement of Case against Mr Hanam only concerned the allegation of overcharging (the “First Charge”). The Statement of Case was amended to introduce five other charges in respect of breaches of rr 17(2)(e) and 17(2)(f) of the PCR. In total, six charges, which were also framed as alternative charges, were preferred against Mr Hanam. Mr Hanam denied all the charges in his defence (at [31] to [36]).

8 The DT found that the second and third charges against Mr Hanam were established (the “Second” and “Third Charges” respectively) on 14 counts, and that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed. Broadly, these charges pertained to his failure to properly evaluate and advise Mr Pugazendhi. The First Charge was stayed. The remaining three charges were either deemed withdrawn or dismissed. The DT rejected Mr Pugazendhi’s allegation that the charges were vague and contained insufficient particulars. The DT also drew an adverse inference against Mr Hanam in respect of whether he had provided advice orally to Mr Pugazendhi (at [37] to [42]).

9 The C3J rejected Mr Hanam’s argument that the Second and Third Charges were irregular. The inclusion of the phrase “properly and periodically” in the Second and Third Charges did not detract from the nub of the allegations or render the charges incompetent or incomprehensible. They merely amplified the relevant rules (at [47] to [49]). Whilst Mr Hanam complained that the charges were vague, the charges were sufficiently detailed for the purposes of enabling him to prepare his defence (at [50] to [51]).

10 The DT’s decision to place less weight on Mr Hanam’s evidence was justified as Mr Hanam had not countermanded the evidence of Mr Pugazendhi. Mr Hanam had not kept any proper attendance notes or records to corroborate his claim that he rendered legal advice orally to P&P and to support the reasonableness of any legal advice rendered. His explanations for the absence of attendance notes were also lame and did not squarely address the omission. The significance of keeping proper attendance notes could not have been lost on him. In the circumstances, the DT was justified in disbelieving Mr Hanam’s evidence (at [52] to [57]).

11 The C3J set aside six of the fourteen counts where the Law Society’s case was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. The C3J set out its reasons for setting aside the six findings by the DT in full in the Judgment. The six findings are as follows. First, there was a reasonable doubt that Mr Hanam acted without the instructions or consent of Mr Pugazendhi in filing SUM 1394. This arose from Mr Hanam’s response after he was informed that SUM 1394 had been dismissed with costs ordered against P&P (at [62] to [66]). Secondly, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether Mr Hanam failed to obtain the instructions or consent of Mr Pugazendhi in issuing an OTS on P&P’s behalf in Suit 1167. This was due to Mr Pugazendhi’s equivocal evidence of whether the OTS was made without his instructions (at [67] to [73]). Thirdly, the DT determined that Mr Hanam did not advise on Kori’s OTS dated 29 January 2019 in DC 1043, specifically that he failed to balance the benefits of accepting the OTS against the potential detriments of proceeding with trial. The C3J found that it was never Mr Hanam’s recommendation that Mr Pugazendhi should commence trial. This was a reasonable and plausible explanation for his omission (at [74] to [76]). Fourthly, the DT faulted Mr Hanam on the two counts in relation to the December 2016 Invoices. These findings were set aside as no discernible harm materialised to warrant faulting Mr Hanam for the omissions. As transpired, the December 2016 Invoices could not have been sued on in December 2016, and Suit 1167 could have only been commenced after P&P accepted Kori’s offer to pay a compromised sum of $342,821.05 in October 2017 (at [77] to [81]). Finally, the C3J determined that Mr Hanam should not be faulted for not having advised on the option of waiting for the issue of judgment in Suit 1255 instead of Suit 1167. There was no reason for Mr Hanam to have advised Mr Pugazendhi on such an option given that Kori had not imposed any conditions on the offer to pay the sum of $342,821.05 and further, there was no set-off agreement (at [82] to [86]).

12 Turning to the eight findings of the DT that were not to be disturbed, the C3J’s full reasons were set out in the Judgment. Beginning with the two instances where Mr Hanam acted without the authority of Mr Pugazendhi, Mr Hanam accepted that he acted without the instructions or consent of Mr Pugazendhi. The two instances pertained to costs paid by P&P. Mr Hanam’s arguments that his conduct should be excused because Mr Pugazendhi was not in a position to give instructions on the costs and that issues of costs are not of a legal nature were without merit. Moreover, it was not Mr Hanam’s case that Mr Pugazendhi was uninterested or disengaged from the three suits that P&P was embroiled in. If Mr Pugazendhi had been so, Mr Hanam’s actions could have been explicable (at [90] to [93]).

13 As for Mr Hanam’s failure to discuss the use of ADR options, the C3J faulted Mr Hanam for failing to discuss the use of the adjudication regime under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) (“SOPA Adjudication”) in Suit 1255. Mr Hanam’s account that he advised Mr Pugazendhi on SOPA Adjudication was not believable. Mr Hanam’s breach was committed despite notification in the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 (1 January 2013 release) that it is part of the duty of an advocate and solicitor to advise on ADR options. Considering the financial predicament of P&P and the features of SOPA Adjudication (being an affordable and speedy resolution process for construction disputes), it was incumbent on Mr Hanam to have discussed the use of SOPA Adjudication (at [94] to [100]). Mr Hanam also failed to discuss ADR options in Suit 1167. Mr Hanam could not rely on his previous advice to Mr Pugazendhi on ADR options in Suit 1255, and there was no evidence that he advised Mr Pugazendhi on ADR options or SOPA Adjudication in Suit 1167 (at [101] to [103]).

14 On both counts concerning Mr Hanam’s failure to advise, there was no evidence to support Mr Hanam’s claim that he advised Mr Pugazendhi (at [104] to [108]).

15 As regards Mr Hanam’s failure to properly advise, the C3J affirmed the DT’s findings on two counts. The first count pertains to his conduct in resisting SUM 431 on the basis of irrelevance and in filing an appeal against the decision. Mr Hanam’s advice was not proper. He merely asserted that the documents were irrelevant. It was also erroneous given that the documents sought were referred to in P&P’s own pleadings (at [109] to [112]). The second count pertains to his advice on the commencement of DC 1043 whereupon he failed to provide proper advice. In the main, this was due to his lack of understanding of the legal character of the Suit 1255 Settlement (at [113] to [118]).

16 Due cause was established for the Second and Third Charges. The question was whether Mr Hanam’s conduct amounted to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor. This was clearly the case in respect of the instances where he acted without authority. On these counts, his behaviour was based on an ill-conceived and troubling interpretation of the rules that there was no need for him to have obtained Mr Pugazendhi’s consent or instructions because the latter would not have been in the position to do so (at [123]).

17 As regards the remaining grounds (ie, failure to discuss ADR options, failure to advise, and failure to properly advise), the C3J found that that the substance of the events that developed in the course of the three actions stemmed from his failure to advise and, in instances where advice was provided, providing ill-informed advice due to a lack of evaluation, inadequate preparation and even a lack of understanding of the law including failing to advise on alterative courses of action or the potential consequence of an action or application (at [124]).

18 On whether Mr Hanam’s misconduct should be the subject of penal jurisdiction, especially since it was not to be assumed that every case of negligence by a solicitor will result in a finding of due cause for sanction, the C3J noted that neglect or incompetence can amount to due cause of sanction depending on the overall circumstances of the case; for instance where the standard of conduct was inexcusable and regarded as deplorable by fellows in the profession. In making such an assessment, the court may draw on the cumulative account of matters, taking into account the entire factual backdrop. In this light, Mr Hanam’s cumulative failures were sustained and prolonged over a period of close to three years. They were symptomatic of his cavalier disregard for the rules of professional conduct. The gravamen of his misconduct was the clearest when considered in its full factual context, with his missteps resulting in more litigation and costs incurred than required (at [125] to [130]).

19 Mr Hanam’s misconduct was not only repeated but also of deleterious effect to P&P’s interests. A sanction that appropriately reflects these aspects of his misconduct is warranted (at [133])

20 A fine of $15,000, as sought by Mr Hanam, was not appropriate. While cases involving grossly improper conduct without dishonesty or deceit will attract a monetary penalty, the outcome is ultimately dependent on the overall circumstances of the case and the gravity of the misconduct. Mr Hanam’s argument for a fine relied on a selective summary of his misconduct to downplay the severity of his breaches. His position was also not supported by the case authority he relies on (at [134] to [138]).

21 A sanction of suspension was clearly appropriate considering Mr Hanam’s misconduct and the overall gravity of the situation. However, the C3J disagreed with the length of suspension sought by the Law Society, that being between three and a half years and four and a half years. The Law Society’s position was premised on Mr Hanam’s breach of the two charges on 14 counts. Six of the 14 counts had been set aside. The precedents relied on by the Law Society also did not assist its case (at [139] to [141]).

22 Based on the general applicable principles guiding the determination of the appropriate sanction (at [131] and [132]) and keeping in view that the present case involves multiple instances of misconduct, it was appropriate to undertake an assessment of the misconduct in totality and to consider the overall gravity of the matter in determining the appropriate sanction (at [142]). The C3J noted four aggravating factors: first, the length of Mr Hanam’s offending; second, Mr Hanam’s lack of remorse; third, Mr Hanam’s seniority as a practitioner of 18 years’ standing at the material time; and lastly, the prejudice caused to P&P. The C3J observed that there were no salient mitigating factors in his favour, save for that he did not have any antecedents and that he had not seriously contested his failure to take Mr Pugazendhi’s instructions on several instances. The C3J also noted that he did not intentionally or wilfully mishandle the three suits with a view to harming Mr Pugazendhi or P&P. In all the circumstances, a 9-month suspension from practice was appropriate (at [143] to [145]).

23 The C3J found that there was due cause for disciplinary action and imposed a 9-month suspension under s 83(1)(b) of LPA commencing four weeks after the date of the judgment. The Law Society sought costs and disbursements totalling $63,340.44. Given the variations in the findings by the DT, it was only fair that Mr Hanam bore $32,000, this being about half the costs incurred before the DT and the C3J.