註冊 登入



打印

Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief (偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝)

[隱藏]
Thanks for sharing


熱門搜尋: 婚宴 情侶戒指 粉底 西裝訂造 鑽石 wedding

回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 lindachung4ever 於 2017-6-21 12:45 AM 發表

偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝 (Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief)

馬恩國大律師爆粗都要被釘牌一個月啦!
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140618/mobile/odn-20140618-0618_00176_090.html

馬恩國爆粗罰做「釘牌大狀」一月






老公犯此罪 老婆要反省
無視 under 害死老馬






tc

回覆 引用 TOP

有問題。





回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 henrypottinger 於 2017-10-27 10:26 AM 發表


馬恩國大律師爆粗都要被釘牌一個月啦!
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140618/mobile/odn-20140618-0618_00176_090.html

馬恩國爆粗罰做「釘牌大狀」一月
The worst lawyer in Hong Kong is actually Solicitor Au Wing Lun William, who had been disciplined by the Law Society of Hong Kong multiple times and had been criticized as flagrantly incompetent and abusing the legal process.
http://solicitorauwinglunwilliamisdisgusting.blogspot.hk/2017/07/solicitor-au-wing-lun-william-is-guilty.html?m=1

區穎麟律師經常俾香港律師會裁定違反專業操守佢自己知唔知醜㗎!自大冇撚用!Solicitor Au Wing Lun William is Guilty of Misconduct, Arrogant Ignorant Incompetent and Useless!

HKSAR v. LAI WAI [1998] HKCA 230; CACC 50/1998 (31 August 1998)

Power VP (giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal):

It is the contention of the appellant, argued by Mr. Phillip Ross, that there was a flagrant failure by Mr. William Au, who appeared for the applicant below properly to present the applicant's defence...

28. The defence accorded the applicant by Mr. Au was, we have no hesitation in saying, characterized by flagrant incompetence. He left matters to his clerk which were clearly his duty to undertake. He failed to ensure that full instructions were taken from the applicant and was, because of this, never in a position fully to put the defence.

AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS [2007] HKCFI 719; HCA 811/2007 (13 July 2007)

Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers

Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and destroys the very freedom that a client enjoys in choosing his own lawyer. It is indeed the most absurd submission that I have ever heard. It really appals me that such a suggestion could have come from the mouth of a practicing solicitor.

This is a wholly unmeritorious application. It is indeed an abuse of process. I will order costs against Mr Au on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.













實用相關搜尋: 律師 香港 blog

回覆 引用 TOP

人面獸心





回覆 引用 TOP

 21 12
 提示:支持鍵盤翻頁 ←左 右→
[按此隱藏 Google 建議的相符內容]





重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,香港討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意 見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。香港討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言 (刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知 ), 同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權 。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。


Copyright©2003- Discuss.com.hk Limited. All Right Reserved.
版權所有,不得轉載。