Lawayer Solicitor Wan Hok Wai Henry Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 尹學偉律師專業失當罪成

律師尹學偉專業失當罪成 - Lawyer Solicitor Henry Wan Guilty of Professional Misconduct

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=3120&c=121

Hearing Dates: 6 and 7 February 2012 Statement of Findings: 6 June 2013 Reasons and Order: 17 January 2014

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the following two complaints proved after hearings held on 6 and 7 February 2012 respectively:

First Complaint

Breach of Principle 6.01 of the Guide and Rule 2(a), (c) and (e) of the SPR while acting for a Mr. Chan (“Chan”) and a Madam Ma (“Ma”) in the proposed assignment between them concerning their jointly owned property (the “Property”) which was part of a development of the Hong Kong Housing Authority under the Home Ownership Scheme by:-

(i) procuring Chan and Ma to execute the Deed of Assignment (the “Deed of Assignment”) before approval from the HKHA had been obtained, and arranging for the registration of the Deed of Assignment when the Respondent must have known that the Deed of Assignment was void;

(ii) swapping the pages of the Deed of Assignment so that it incorporated the HKHA’s amendments and attached the execution page containing Chan’s and Ma’s signatures; and

(iii) acting dishonestly or fraudulently in connection with the execution of the Approval Letter and the Deed of Assignment by arranging for Chan’s father (the “Claimant”) to sign the docket to the Approval Letter when the Respondent must have been aware that he was breaching the undertaking to the HKHA which required the Approval Letter to be signed by the Assignee Chan.

Second Complaint

Breach of Principle 13.01 of the Guide and Rule 2(a) of the SPR by concealing or failing to disclose to the Hong Kong Solicitors Indemnity Fund Limited that as part of the Respondent’s proposed settlement with the Claimant, the Respondent would obtain a personal interest in the Property.

On 17 January 2014, the Tribunal ordered:

(a) That in relation to the First Complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$40,000.
(b) That in relation to the Second Complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$80,000.
(c) That the Respondent bears and pays for:

i. the costs of the Clerk, which are summarily assessed and allowed at HK$115,000; and
ii. the costs of the Law Society in its investigation into the matter and the costs of the solicitor for the Law Society, to be taxed if not agreed.

On 2 April 2015, the Court of Appeal held that:-

(1) The Respondent’s appeal in CACV 20/2014 be allowed. The decision of the Tribunal in respect of the Second Complaint be set aside and be dismissed, and the Law Society to pay 85 percent of the costs of the Solicitor in this appeal.

(2) The appeal by the Law Society in CACV 78/2014 be allowed. The penalty imposed by the Tribunal in respect of the First Complaint be set aside, and the appropriate penalty should be a suspension for two years with the condition that when the Solicitor (the Respondent) resumes practice after the suspension, he is prohibited from practising as a sole proprietor or partner or manager of a solicitors firm until the Law Society is satisfied that he is fit to do so. The Solicitor (the Respondent) shall pay the Law Society’s costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.

On 30 April 2015, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in CACV 78/2014.  On 10 July 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal with costs to the Law Society assessed at HK$60,000.
________________________

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=3120&c=121

聆訊日期: 2012年2月6日及7日 裁斷陳述書: 2013年6月6日 理由及命令: 2014年1月17日

律師紀律審裁組(「審裁組」)分別於2012年2月6日及7日聆訊本案，經兩日聆訊後裁定，事實證明以下兩項申訴成立：

第一項申訴

陳先生(下稱「陳」)與馬女士(下稱「馬」)是香港房屋委員會(下稱「房委會」)居者有其屋計劃下某單位(下稱「該單位」)的聯名業主；答辯人在馬擬將業權轉讓陳的交易中代表二人行事時：

(i) 在上述轉讓取得房委會批准之前，促致陳和馬簽立轉讓契據(下稱「該轉讓契據」)，並安排註冊該轉讓契據，但其時答辯人一定知道該轉讓契據是無效的；
(ii) 對調該轉讓契據內頁，使得房委會的修訂成為該轉讓契據的一部分，但保留載有陳和馬的簽名的簽名頁；及
(iii) 就「批准信」和該轉讓契據的執行，安排陳的父親 (「申索人」)在「批准信」上加簽，是不誠實地或欺詐地行事；按照房委會的規定，「批准信」須由陳 (承讓人)簽署，答辯人其時一知道自己正違反房委會這項規定；

因而違反《指引》原則6.01以及《執業規則》第2(a)、(c)及(e)條的規定。

第二項申訴

答辯人隱暪香港律師彌償基金有限公司或沒有向香港律師彌償基金有限公司披露，他曾向申索人提出他個人會獲得關乎該單位的利益的和解建議，因而違反《指引》原則13.01以及《執業規則》第2(a)條的規定。

2014年1月17日，審裁組：

(a) 就第一項申訴，命令答辯人支付罰款港幣40,000元。
(b) 就第二項申訴，命令答辯人支付罰款港幣80,000元。
(c) 命令答辯人承擔及支付：

(i) 循簡易程序評定及獲准予的書記費用港幣115,000元；及
(ii) 律師會調查案件的費用和律師會的律師費用，如雙方未能就金額達成協議，則須交由法院評定。

2015年4月2日，上訴法庭裁定：

(1) 答辯人在CACV 20/2014上訴得直。審裁組有關第二申訴的判決被擱置及撤銷，律師會須支付涉案律師在這宗上訴案中的訟費的85%。

(2) 律師會在CACV 78/2014上訴得直。審裁組就第一項申訴判處的懲罰作廢，合適的懲罰應是暫時吊銷律師執業資格兩年，涉案律師(答辯人)在兩年結束後恢復執業的條件是，他不得以律師行獨營執業者或合夥人或主管的身份執業，直至律師會相信他適合以這些身份執業為止。涉案律師(答辯人)須支付律師會的上訴訟費，如雙方未能就金額達成協議，則須交由法院評定。

2015年4月30日，答辯人針對上訴法庭在CACV 78/2014的判決，呈交申請向終審法院上訴的許可的動議通知書。2015年7月10日，上訴法庭駁回答辯人申請向終審法院上訴的許可的動議，評定為港幣60,000元的訟費歸予律師會。