http://news.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=24427805&extra=page%3D1
http://newsofhksar.blogspot.hk/2015/01/lawyers-counsel-barristers-eric-kwok-sc-and-vivian-ho-sued-for-gross-misconduct-and-negligence.html
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20131117/00176_041.html
Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Lawyer Counsel Barrister Vivian Ho Sued for Serious Misconduct and Negligence - 資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻被控嚴重失職及疏忽
中原地產多名高層之前被廉政公署刑事檢控，指他們涉嫌支付非法回佣予交易客戶，眾被告○八年在區院被裁定串謀詐騙等罪成立及判囚；其中一名總經理潘志明被判囚廿二個月，他在服刑十四個月後於高院上訴得直，撤銷定罪後重返中原工作。他昨日入稟高院民事指控在原審時代表他的資深大律師郭棟明及律師行失職、疏忽及違反聘約，要求對方賠償他損失，但未有透露金額。
原告潘志明（四十九歲），事發時是中原（工商舖）商舖部總經理，現時擔任中原（工商舖）營運總監；三名被告依次是翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻。
上訴庭：令原告得不到公平審訊原告於○八年受審時，控方指他涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中詐騙中原，指其私人公司是交易介紹人，向中原申領約六十萬元介紹費後，將錢交予買家羅家寶的職員作回佣。惟上訴庭判他脫罪時指，羅家寶曾向廉署錄口供指其職員毋須批准便收取回佣；另外，中原集團主席施永青亦曾供稱，指若知收回佣者是獲僱主同意，就算同事填報的介紹人是虛假也會照批介紹費，不認為這是詐騙。
雖然原審法官在判決時批評中原此種做法，是鼓勵貪污風氣及對旗下員工的監察未夠嚴謹；惟上訴庭指，原審時若原告律師有向施永青提出羅家寶的供詞，便會成為原告沒有詐騙的有力證據；但原告律師並沒這樣做，這屬嚴重失職令原告得不到公平審訊，因此撤銷原告的定罪。
原告在入稟狀指，原審時控方在案件開審前大半年，已表明有羅家寶的供詞但不會呈堂；但被告一方卻告訴原告，羅家寶的供詞「無足輕重」而無向控方索取。另外在施永青作供後，被告一方亦無向原告解釋施的供詞對其抗辯有關鍵幫助，亦無傳召羅做辯方證人等，原告認為被告此舉屬失職。
案件編號： HCA 2221/2013
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1358092/centaline-property-agent-sues-law-firm-barristers-who-represented-him
A property agency manager has sued a law firm and two of its barristers (Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Barrister Vivian Ho), claiming they failed in their duty to defend him against allegations that he paid kickbacks to secure a deal.
Poon Chi-ming, formerly a general manager at Centaline Commercial, was convicted in June 2008 of two counts of conspiracy to defraud in the District Court and jailed for 22 months.
The ruling was overturned on appeal and he was released after spending 14 months in jail.
Poon, now chief operating officer of Centaline Commercial, filed the High Court writ on Friday against the law firm, Simon C.W. Yung & Co, and the barristers, Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho.
Poon and two other agents were found guilty of conspiring to deceive Centaline into paying HK$600,000 in kickbacks to a private company in two transactions between 2005 and 2006. They had claimed the money was paid as referral fees to an employee of a company buying a commercial property.
Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho represented Poon in the District Court trial.
Poon hired another legal team to represent him on appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in his favour and quashed his conviction in March 2010. Poon was released after spending 14 months in jail.
The appeal court judges found that the Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to make good use of a witness statement, meaning Poon missed out on a fair trial.
The statement was made by billionaire Law Kar-po, the boss of the company which was buying the property. Law told the Independent Commission Against Corruption that he had known about the deal and allowed his employee to accept the referral fees from the property agent.
The statement had been given to Poon's lawyers before the trial.
The appeal court found the defence counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to use the statement when questioning Centaline chairman Shih Wing-ching. Shih was a witness in the trial and testified that if he knew the firm had agreed to the employee receiving referral fees, it would have paid the commission and not felt it had been deceived.
In the writ, Poon claims that Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho, and the law firm Simon C Y Yung & Co Solicitors, failed to appreciate that Law's statement contained crucial evidence.
He also says they failed to instruct Poon to call Law and other related parties as defence witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131117/18511708
中原工商舖營運總監潘志明，因涉提供非法回佣，08年被判監22個月。潘其後就定罪提出上訴，上訴庭當時批評原審辯方律師嚴重失職，故判他上訴得直推翻定罪，但潘已白坐冤獄14個月。潘志明指控原審時代表他的資深大律師等律師團疏忽失職，日前入稟高等法院向他們索償。
涉疏忽失職累事主判囚
於案發時任職中原工商舖總經理的潘志明（50歲），昨表示案件已進入法律程序，不便作出回應。而三名被告則為翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明，及大律師何慧嫻。郭昨表示不予回應。
入稟狀指，三名被告代表潘志明在該宗串謀詐騙案進行辯護，但他們疏忽失職，未有留意證人羅家寶的供詞，對潘的辯護起關鍵作用，在審訊中沒有引用羅的供詞，或傳召羅作辯方證人。
潘志明涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中，騙取中原向買家代表發放60多萬元佣金。
上訴庭曾指，辯方代表律師嚴重失職，未有提及買家代表的僱主羅家寶，曾表示准許員工收取回佣的證供，即收回佣行為是合法的。而中原主席施永青，在原審時亦表示只要是對公司有利，而買家的僱主是容許收回佣，亦不算詐騙中原。
案件編號：HCA2221/13
2015年4月17日 星期五
Counsel Lawyer Barrister Albert Leung (梁思豪大律師) Takes the Hong Kong Bar Association (香港大律師公會) To Court Over His Intended Side Job
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/1766620/hong-kong-barrister-takes-bar-association-task-over-second
Barrister Albert Leung is accusing the Bar Association of acting unlawfully by blocking him from starting a second career as a "body figuring practitioner" helping people to correct limb and spinal misalignments, a court has heard.
The case has put the spotlight on barristers looking to earn extra cash by doubling up as practitioners in other fields, for which they may need to obtain approval from their legal professional body.
Lawyer Albert Leung Sze-ho was turned down by the association in March last year in his application to juggle both the body figuring job and his legal work concurrently, based on concerns the job might adversely affect the reputation of barristers.
In a judicial review at the Court of First Instance yesterday, Leung, 45, challenged that decision. His lawyer said: "Many barristers who have less experience and do not come from good families rely on supplementary jobs to keep stable incomes."
Senior Counsel for the association mentioned a neuro-beautology course Leung had taken that involved massage.
He cited a website featuring the course as claiming such treatment could help women in breast augmentation. The site also showed the back of a half-naked woman, an image he suggested degraded women.
"Neuro-beautology is not something that the Bar Association is willing to approve as a supplementary occupation," he said.
The court heard that Leung was called to the Bar in 2005.
Separately, in his application for a judicial review, Leung said he was certified by the Canadian examining board of health care practitioners and was a member of the International Naturopathic Medicine Association. He completed the course last year and wanted to practise as a freelancer while working as a barrister in order to have a more stable income.
Outside court, he said neuro-beautology used equipment or massage to correct parts of the spine that were out of alignment or adjust legs of different lengths.
Yesterday, Barrister Albert Leung's lawyer told the court the picture mentioned merely showed a class being taught. He said Leung did not take that course and the work did not involve physical contact.
He alleged the association's decision breached Article 33 of the Basic Law, which allowed Hong Kong residents freedom of choice of occupation. He conceded the Bar Council, the association's governing body, had not blocked Leung from doing either job - but said he was not allowed to do both concurrently.
The Hong Kong Bar Association argued the council considered working in a body-figuring job might be in breach of the association's code of conduct, which it was duty-bound to enforce.
Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho will give his ruling later. Leung ceased serving as a barrister and worked as a body figuring practitioner after his application failed, but resumed legal work this year.
http://www.orientaldaily.com.hk/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150414/bkn-20150414140207578-0414_00822_001.html?refer=hn2
擁有「體雕師」資格的大律師梁思豪，因不滿大律師公會否決他以「體雕師」作副業幫補家計，於是入稟高院，就大律師的副業限制申請司法覆核，以推翻公會決定，並頒令公會修改有關規則。
案件今早在高院開審，代表大律師公會的資深大律師開庭即指，申請人在文件冊中附上的「國際自然療法學院」的體雕師課程簡介中，課程網頁中有女性裸露上半身的圖片，認為有不尊重女性甚至侮辱之嫌。麥續指，相關課程簡介又指可協助女士「豐胸」，顯示「體雕師」職業明顯違反公會守則第23條、即副業不可影響公會形象一節，故才會被公會否決。
但梁思豪的代表律師指，被指摘的圖片中的女性只露出背部供「體雕師」進行治療，與侮辱女性全無關係，且療程是正常推拿，不涉色情成份，不會影響公眾形象。另外，梁的律師亦引述《基本法》第33條為主要理據，即所有香港居民均有權選擇自己的職業，認為公會的副業規定已明顯違反《基本法》規定。案件將在下午續審。
http://www.singpao.com/xw/gat/201504/t20150415_554901.html
入行約10年的大律師梁思豪去年向大律師公會申請從事矯正歪斜體格的「體雕師」副業，但遭公會拒絕，他入稟高院申請司法覆核，案件昨日開審。公會一方指出，「體雕師」屬另類療法，其簡介資料包括裸體女性照片，又謂療法可幫助豐胸，是假科學及冒犯女性，副業可能影響公會形象，故反對梁的兼職。
梁思豪於2005年投身大律師行業，入稟稱「體雕學」是自然療法的一種，以簡易技巧矯正歪斜體格，消除身體不適。但公會以體雕師與執業大律師工作有牴觸，拒絕其申請。大律師公會的專業守則第23段，禁止大律師從事其他損害公會聲譽的職業，守則列出可從事的職業及副業，如議員、講師等，並要求大律師要事先申請。
代表公會的資深大律師指出，梁思豪呈交的「國際自然療法學院」體雕師課程簡介中資料，包括裸體女性照片，又謂療法可幫助豐胸，是假科學及冒犯女性，副業可能影響公會形象。梁思豪一方反駁，進行療法不用脫衣，豐胸一說亦只是公會的錯誤理解，該照片只是反映課程授課情況，不是進行「體雕學」治療的實況。大律師公會的決策與大眾利益掛，基本法第33條及普通法亦保障香港市民享有自由選擇職業。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150415/19113170
入行十年的大律師梁思豪（圖）學習矯正歪斜體格作治療的「體雕學」後，向大律師公會申請以「體雕師」做，但公會認為與其工作有牴觸而拒絕。梁申請司法覆核，案件昨在高院開審。公會一方解釋，梁提供的學院網頁資料，顯示「體雕學」可豐胸，又展示一幅女性半裸接受治療的相片，但看不到療法有科學根據，若公會批准申請，會被視為認同冒犯女性的按摩服務。
指公會侵犯人權
代表公會的資深大律師又指「體雕學」也是對人體的脊骨、頸項等部位進行治療，卻毋須領牌，梁未能解釋「體雕學」與受監管的脊醫有何分別。
代表梁的大律師則指，公會的守則侵犯選擇職業的基本人權，是否批准做副業賺外快也無準則，令初入行的大狀尤其難以維持生計，而香港是唯一一處仍保留此等限制。法官指，守則對副業設限或是刻意，目的是汰弱留強。梁的大律師不同意，認為守則令有錢人才能生存。
法官聽罷雙方陳詞後，押後判決。梁在庭外表示，已於今年初取回執業牌照，暫時不做體雕師。
案件編號：HCAL 63 / 2014
Barrister Albert Leung is accusing the Bar Association of acting unlawfully by blocking him from starting a second career as a "body figuring practitioner" helping people to correct limb and spinal misalignments, a court has heard.
The case has put the spotlight on barristers looking to earn extra cash by doubling up as practitioners in other fields, for which they may need to obtain approval from their legal professional body.
Lawyer Albert Leung Sze-ho was turned down by the association in March last year in his application to juggle both the body figuring job and his legal work concurrently, based on concerns the job might adversely affect the reputation of barristers.
In a judicial review at the Court of First Instance yesterday, Leung, 45, challenged that decision. His lawyer said: "Many barristers who have less experience and do not come from good families rely on supplementary jobs to keep stable incomes."
Senior Counsel for the association mentioned a neuro-beautology course Leung had taken that involved massage.
He cited a website featuring the course as claiming such treatment could help women in breast augmentation. The site also showed the back of a half-naked woman, an image he suggested degraded women.
"Neuro-beautology is not something that the Bar Association is willing to approve as a supplementary occupation," he said.
The court heard that Leung was called to the Bar in 2005.
Separately, in his application for a judicial review, Leung said he was certified by the Canadian examining board of health care practitioners and was a member of the International Naturopathic Medicine Association. He completed the course last year and wanted to practise as a freelancer while working as a barrister in order to have a more stable income.
Outside court, he said neuro-beautology used equipment or massage to correct parts of the spine that were out of alignment or adjust legs of different lengths.
Yesterday, Barrister Albert Leung's lawyer told the court the picture mentioned merely showed a class being taught. He said Leung did not take that course and the work did not involve physical contact.
He alleged the association's decision breached Article 33 of the Basic Law, which allowed Hong Kong residents freedom of choice of occupation. He conceded the Bar Council, the association's governing body, had not blocked Leung from doing either job - but said he was not allowed to do both concurrently.
The Hong Kong Bar Association argued the council considered working in a body-figuring job might be in breach of the association's code of conduct, which it was duty-bound to enforce.
Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho will give his ruling later. Leung ceased serving as a barrister and worked as a body figuring practitioner after his application failed, but resumed legal work this year.
http://www.orientaldaily.com.hk/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150414/bkn-20150414140207578-0414_00822_001.html?refer=hn2
擁有「體雕師」資格的大律師梁思豪，因不滿大律師公會否決他以「體雕師」作副業幫補家計，於是入稟高院，就大律師的副業限制申請司法覆核，以推翻公會決定，並頒令公會修改有關規則。
案件今早在高院開審，代表大律師公會的資深大律師開庭即指，申請人在文件冊中附上的「國際自然療法學院」的體雕師課程簡介中，課程網頁中有女性裸露上半身的圖片，認為有不尊重女性甚至侮辱之嫌。麥續指，相關課程簡介又指可協助女士「豐胸」，顯示「體雕師」職業明顯違反公會守則第23條、即副業不可影響公會形象一節，故才會被公會否決。
但梁思豪的代表律師指，被指摘的圖片中的女性只露出背部供「體雕師」進行治療，與侮辱女性全無關係，且療程是正常推拿，不涉色情成份，不會影響公眾形象。另外，梁的律師亦引述《基本法》第33條為主要理據，即所有香港居民均有權選擇自己的職業，認為公會的副業規定已明顯違反《基本法》規定。案件將在下午續審。
http://www.singpao.com/xw/gat/201504/t20150415_554901.html
入行約10年的大律師梁思豪去年向大律師公會申請從事矯正歪斜體格的「體雕師」副業，但遭公會拒絕，他入稟高院申請司法覆核，案件昨日開審。公會一方指出，「體雕師」屬另類療法，其簡介資料包括裸體女性照片，又謂療法可幫助豐胸，是假科學及冒犯女性，副業可能影響公會形象，故反對梁的兼職。
梁思豪於2005年投身大律師行業，入稟稱「體雕學」是自然療法的一種，以簡易技巧矯正歪斜體格，消除身體不適。但公會以體雕師與執業大律師工作有牴觸，拒絕其申請。大律師公會的專業守則第23段，禁止大律師從事其他損害公會聲譽的職業，守則列出可從事的職業及副業，如議員、講師等，並要求大律師要事先申請。
代表公會的資深大律師指出，梁思豪呈交的「國際自然療法學院」體雕師課程簡介中資料，包括裸體女性照片，又謂療法可幫助豐胸，是假科學及冒犯女性，副業可能影響公會形象。梁思豪一方反駁，進行療法不用脫衣，豐胸一說亦只是公會的錯誤理解，該照片只是反映課程授課情況，不是進行「體雕學」治療的實況。大律師公會的決策與大眾利益掛，基本法第33條及普通法亦保障香港市民享有自由選擇職業。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150415/19113170
入行十年的大律師梁思豪（圖）學習矯正歪斜體格作治療的「體雕學」後，向大律師公會申請以「體雕師」做，但公會認為與其工作有牴觸而拒絕。梁申請司法覆核，案件昨在高院開審。公會一方解釋，梁提供的學院網頁資料，顯示「體雕學」可豐胸，又展示一幅女性半裸接受治療的相片，但看不到療法有科學根據，若公會批准申請，會被視為認同冒犯女性的按摩服務。
指公會侵犯人權
代表公會的資深大律師又指「體雕學」也是對人體的脊骨、頸項等部位進行治療，卻毋須領牌，梁未能解釋「體雕學」與受監管的脊醫有何分別。
代表梁的大律師則指，公會的守則侵犯選擇職業的基本人權，是否批准做副業賺外快也無準則，令初入行的大狀尤其難以維持生計，而香港是唯一一處仍保留此等限制。法官指，守則對副業設限或是刻意，目的是汰弱留強。梁的大律師不同意，認為守則令有錢人才能生存。
法官聽罷雙方陳詞後，押後判決。梁在庭外表示，已於今年初取回執業牌照，暫時不做體雕師。
案件編號：HCAL 63 / 2014
The Challenge Of Lawyer Christopher Paul Erving (Of Erving Brettell Solicitors) Said To Be Wholly Misconceived and Devoid of Merit by Deputy Judge Doreen Le Pichon
THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. CHRISTOPHER PAUL ERVING PREVIOUSLY PRACTISING AS ERVING BRETTELL [2015] HKCFI 165; HCMP 2402/2014 (6 February 2015)
....
....
9. What is now clear is that the defendant neither disputes nor challenges the Council’s conclusions following the completion of its investigations. Monies have been misappropriated from client accounts and sums are due and owing to the three claimants who were clients of the Firm. In other words, the Intervention was entirely justified...
29. For the reasons stated, the defendant’s challenge is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It falls to be rejected with costs in favour of the Council.
Mr Richard Hudson, instructed by Deacons, for the plaintiff
Mr Michael Blanchflower SC, instructed by Chong & Yen, for the defendant
(Source: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2015/165.html)
....
....
9. What is now clear is that the defendant neither disputes nor challenges the Council’s conclusions following the completion of its investigations. Monies have been misappropriated from client accounts and sums are due and owing to the three claimants who were clients of the Firm. In other words, the Intervention was entirely justified...
Conclusion
29. For the reasons stated, the defendant’s challenge is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It falls to be rejected with costs in favour of the Council.
| (Doreen Le Pichon) | |
| Deputy Judge of the Court of First Instance | |
| High Court |
Mr Richard Hudson, instructed by Deacons, for the plaintiff
Mr Michael Blanchflower SC, instructed by Chong & Yen, for the defendant
(Source: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2015/165.html)
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)