Solicitors T K Cheng and C H Kwong Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 律師鄭子駒及鄺志豪專業失當罪成被罰

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=2478&c=121

Cheng Tze Kui (“1st Respondent”) and Kwong Chi Ho (“2nd Respondent”), formerly, the partners of Messrs. T.K. Cheng & Co. (a closed firm) (the “Firm”)

Hearing Date: 11 March and 2 July 2014

Findings and Order: 6 August 2014

Having considered the Affidavit filed by the Law Society and the exhibits thereto and given the admission of the 1st Respondent to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints, the admission of the 2nd Respondent to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints and the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Agreed Facts, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the 1st Respondent guilty of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints while the 2nd Respondent guilty of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints.

The Complaints laid against the 1st and 2nd Respondents are as follows:

First Complaint
(against 1st Respondent)

Breach of Rule 2(e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (“SPR”) in that the 1st Respondent had repeatedly failed to deliver the Accountant’s Reports of the Firm within the stipulated time to the Law Society in years 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009 which compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair a proper standard of work.

Second Complaint
(against 2nd Respondent)

Breach of Rule 2(e) of the SPR in that the 2nd Respondent had repeatedly failed to deliver the Accountant’s Reports of the Firm within the stipulated time to the Law Society in years 2007 and 2009 which compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair a proper standard of work.

Third Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had failed to deliver the Firm’s 2009–2010 Accountant’s Report to the Law Society within the stipulated time in 2010.

Fourth Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Rule 10(1) and 10(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules (“SAR”) in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had failed to keep properly written up books and accounts of the Firm’s client accounts from September 2010 to May2011.

Fifth Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Rule 10A of the SAR in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had failed to prepare reconciliations of client accounts of all the bank accounts of the Firm from September 2010 to May 2011 save for one of the Firm’s banks for the months of August and September 2010 and for the Firm’s other bank for the month of August 2010.

Sixth Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Rule 11 of the SAR in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had from December 2010 to May 2011 failed to produce to the Monitoring Accountants appointed by the Council of the Law Society (the “Council”) the Firm’s books and accounts for their inspection when they visited the Firm at the direction of the Council on 11 January, 18 April and 3May 2011.

And upon hearing the mitigation submissions made on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the Tribunal ordered, inter alia, that:

In respect of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints, the 1st Respondent be censured; and fined with a sum of HK$30,000, together with a condition imposed on him whereby he may not practise as a sole practitioner or in any partnership for a period of 2 years from the date of the Order (6 August 2014);

In respect of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints, the 2nd Respondent be fined with a sum of HK$30,000; and

Costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Law Society, the Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Tribunal, to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and to be taxed on a party-and-party basis, if not agreed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=2478&c=121

鄭子駒律師(下稱「第一答辯人」)及鄺志豪律師(下稱「第二答辯人」) 前為鄭子駒律師行(已結業) (下稱「該律師行」)合夥人

聆訊日期： 2014年3月11日及7月2日

裁斷及命令： 2014年8月6日

考慮過律師會提交的誓章連證物，並鑑於第一答辯人就第一、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴認罪，第二答辯人就第二、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴認罪，以及經第一及第二答辯人議定的事實，律師紀律審裁組(下稱「審裁組」)裁定針對第一答辯人的第一、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴成立，及針對第二答辯人的第二、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴成立。

針對第一及第二答辯人的申訴如下：

第一項申訴(針對第一答辯人)

第一答辯人在2004、2005、2007和2009年多次未能在指定時間內向律師會提交該律師行的會計師報告，危及或損害了或相當可能危及或損害了適當的工作標準，因此違反《律師執業規則》第2(e)條規則。

第二項申訴(針對第二答辯人)

第二答辯人在2007和2009年多次未能在指定時間內向律師會提交該律師行的會計師報告，危及或損害了或相當可能危及或損害了適當的工作標準，因此違反《律師執業規則》第2(e)條規則。

第三項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年未能在指定時間內向律師會提交該律師行2009年至2010年度的會計師報告，因此違反《法律執業者條例》第8(1)條。

第四項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年9月至2011年5月期間未有為該律師行的當事人帳戶備存妥為詳細記敘的簿冊及帳目，因此違反《律師帳目規則》第10(1)及10(2)條規則。

第五項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年9月至2011年5月期間，未有為該律師行所有銀行帳戶的當事人帳戶擬備對帳表(2010年8月及9月份該律師行使用的其中一間銀行，及2010年8月份該律師行使用的另一間銀行除外)，因此違反《律師帳目規則》第10A條規則。

第六項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年12月至2011年5月期間，在律師會理事會委任的監察會計師依照理事會指示在2011年1月11日、4月18日和5月3日探訪該律師行時，未能出示該律師行的簿冊及帳目以供監察會計師查閱，因此違反《律師帳目規則》第11條規則。

經聽取代表第一及第二答辯人作出的請求輕判陳詞後，審裁組作出命令，其中包括︰

就第一、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴，對第一答辯人施以譴責；及處以罰款30,000港元，並對他施加以下條件：由本命令作出之日起(2014年8月6日)不可以獨營執業者或合夥形式執業，為期2年；

就第二、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴，對第二答辯人處以罰款30,000港元；及

第一及第二答辯人須承擔此等法律程序的費用，包括律師會、檢控人員及審裁組書記的費用，而費用按訴訟各方對評基準評定。