查看完整版本 : 點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用嘅呢? 釘牌嗰喎!

Created20170117 2017-1-18 01:45

點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能嘅呢? Professional Misconduct 嚟嗰喎!會俾 Law So 釘牌嗰喎!

[url=http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/%E9%84%A7%E6%98%8E%E8%BC%9D-%E7%AD%94%E8%BE%AF%E4%BA%BA]http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/[/url][url=http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/%E9%84%A7%E6%98%8E%E8%BC%9D-%E7%AD%94%E8%BE%AF%E4%BA%BA]鄧明輝[/url][url=http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/%E9%84%A7%E6%98%8E%E8%BC%9D-%E7%AD%94%E8%BE%AF%E4%BA%BA]-[/url][url=http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/%E9%84%A7%E6%98%8E%E8%BC%9D-%E7%AD%94%E8%BE%AF%E4%BA%BA]答辯人[/url]

答辯人為Messrs. Joseph Tang & Co. (「律師行」)的獨營執業者。在2012年8月20日,審裁組裁斷在2011年12月23日的經修訂申訴書中向答辯人作出的以下10項指控證明屬實:

第1項指控

違反指引第12.04及12.05條原則,因為答辯人未能向資深大律師駱應淦先生(「駱先生」)結清尚欠的大律師費用。

第2項指控

違反指引第6.04條原則,因為答辯人未能回答由律師會發出要求他就未能結清尚欠駱先生的費用提供解釋的信件。

第3項指控

違反指引第12.04及12.05條原則,因為答辯人未能向大律師劉煥新先生(「劉先生」)結清尚欠的大律師費用。

第4項指控

違反指引第6.04條原則,因為答辯人未能回答由律師會發出要求他就未能結清尚欠劉先生的費用提供解釋的信件...

... 第10項指控

答辯人從事的行為對作為律師的身份並不合適,因為他未能結清尚欠的大律師費用、未能在規定時間內呈交律師行僱員報表及持續地未能解答律師會就他的專業操守作出的查問或在要求下解釋其行為。此等行為構成《律師執業規則》第2(d)及(e)條規則的違反。

審裁組命令:

a) 就第1至9項指控,根據第159章《法律執業者條例》第10(2)(b)條,答辯人被暫時吊銷執業資格為期九個月,即就每項指控暫時吊銷執業資格一個月;

b) 就第10項指控,根據第159章《法律執業者條例》第10(2)(b)條,答辯人被暫時吊銷執業資格為期三個月;

c) 就第1至10項指控答辯人被暫時吊銷執業資格為期共十二個月;及

d) 答辯人須支付申請人、檢控人及審裁組書記的費用,若未能就金額達成協議,則以訴訟各方對評基準按高等法院訟費表評定。

[url=http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent]http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent[/url]

December 2012 - Disciplinary Decisions
Tang Ming Fai, Joseph (the Respondent)

• Principles 6.04, 12.04 and 12.05 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Volume 1 (“the Guide”)

Hearing dates: 19 April 2012 and 20 August 2012

Order: 20 August 2012

Reasons for Decision: 11 October 2012

On 20 August 2012, the Tribunal found the following ten charges as in the Amended Complaint Sheet dated 23 December 2011 proven against the Respondent:

1st Charge

Breaches of Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to settle the outstanding fee of counsel, Mr. Lawrence Lok, S.C. (“Mr. Lok”).

2nd Charge

Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to answer letters sent by the Law Society requiring him to provide his explanation on his failure to settle the outstanding fee of Mr. Lok.

3rd Charge

Breaches in Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to settle the outstanding fee of counsel Mr. Wilson W. S. Lau (“Mr. Lau”).

4th Charge

Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to answer letters sent by the Law Society requiring him to provide his explanation on his failure to settle the outstanding fee of Mr. Lau...

... 10th Charge

The Respondent had engaged in conduct unbefitting of a solicitor in that he had failed to settle the outstanding counsel’s fees, failed to submit the Employees Returns of the Firm within the stipulated time and persistently failed to answer enquiries from the Law Society concerning his professional conduct or to explain his conduct when required to do so. These conduct amounted to breaches of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR.

The Tribunal ordered that:

a) in relation to the 1st to 9th Charges, the Respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor for a period of nine months, being one month suspension for each charge under section 10(2)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap. 159 (“the LPO”);

b) in relation to the 10th Charge, the Respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor for a period of three months under section 10(2)(b) of the LPO;

c) the total period that the Respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor in relation to the 1st to 10th Charges is twelve months; and

d) the Respondent shall pay the costs of the Applicant, the Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Tribunal on a party-to-party basis assessed at the High Court scale to be taxed if not agreed.

[attach]6406828[/attach]
[attach]6406829[/attach]

[attach]6406830[/attach]
[attach]6406831[/attach]

Created20170117 2017-1-19 05:12

[quote]原帖由 [i]Created20170117[/i] 於 2017-1-18 01:45 AM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=454973616&ptid=26388318][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能嘅呢? Professional Misconduct 嚟嗰喎!會俾 Law So 釘牌嗰喎!

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/鄧明輝-答辯人

答辯人為M ... [/quote]
Solicitors who fail or refuse to pay Barristers in full or settle Counsel's Fees in full within 2 months as they should must be irresponsible and immoral idiots.

[attach]6410794[/attach]
[attach]6410795[/attach]
[attach]6410796[/attach]
[attach]6410797[/attach]

Created20170117 2017-1-20 02:55

[quote]原帖由 [i]Created20170117[/i] 於 2017-1-18 01:45 AM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=454973616&ptid=26388318][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能嘅呢? Professional Misconduct 嚟嗰喎!會俾 Law So 釘牌嗰喎!

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/鄧明輝-答辯人

答辯人為M ... [/quote]
All such unethical immoral idiotic solicitors in Hong Kong should be prosecuted by the Law Society of Hong Kong immediately.

[attach]6414824[/attach]
[attach]6414825[/attach]
[attach]6414826[/attach]
[attach]6414827[/attach]

黑又識白又識 2017-1-26 23:15

一早想知道依個問題

ePilot 2017-1-30 21:17

駱叔嘅數都敢拖:funk:
買板唔知掟

好多soli 夠膽拖數,就係恰啲新counsel 唔敢正式反面。 因為一個夠薑報3樓嘅counsel, 好多soli 唔中意用

sonofanfield 2017-1-31 12:22

N 年前試過brief 個一個廟寺既大狀,之後叫秘書交張單俾公司 Accountant 找數
唔知咩人既錯總之張單成年幾冇找
條友又唔搵我追 :smile_40:

yiyiallall 2017-2-2 12:20

[quote]原帖由 [i]ePilot[/i] 於 2017-1-30 09:17 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=455590983&ptid=26388318][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
駱叔嘅數都敢拖:funk:
買板唔知掟

好多soli 夠膽拖數,就係恰啲新counsel 唔敢正式反面。 因為一個夠薑報3樓嘅counsel, 好多soli 唔中意用 [/quote]

我估係冇COSTS ON ACCOUNT, 個行家又莫財:smile_o03:

HKSAR20170204 2017-2-5 10:19

[quote]原帖由 [i]Created20170117[/i] 於 2017-1-18 01:45 AM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=454973616&ptid=26388318][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能嘅呢? Professional Misconduct 嚟嗰喎!會俾 Law So 釘牌嗰喎!

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/content/鄧明輝-答辯人

答辯人為M ... [/quote]
所有唔找或者遲找大律師費用嘅事務律師都係弱智嘅。

HKSAR20170204 2017-2-5 10:29

[quote]原帖由 [i]ePilot[/i] 於 2017-1-30 09:17 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=455590983&ptid=26388318][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
駱叔嘅數都敢拖:funk:
買板唔知掟

好多soli 夠膽拖數,就係恰啲新counsel 唔敢正式反面。 因為一個夠薑報3樓嘅counsel, 好多soli 唔中意用 [/quote]
所有唔找或者遲找大律師費用嘅事務律師都係弱智嘅。人地可能會做法官...

HKSAR20170204 2017-2-5 18:00

[quote]原帖由 [i]HKSAR20170204[/i] 於 2017-2-5 10:29 AM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=455865344&ptid=26388318][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

所有唔找或者遲找大律師費用嘅事務律師都係弱智嘅。人地可能會做法官... [/quote]

而且唔找或者遲找大律師費用嘅事務律師可以被釘牌, 暫時吊銷執業資格十二個月...


[url=http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent]http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent[/url]

yiyiallall 2017-2-8 09:43

好大的怨氣....睇黎好多大狀比人走數:smile_o03: :smile_o01:
頁: [1]
查看完整版本: 點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用嘅呢? 釘牌嗰喎!