HKSAR20170204 2019-3-31 17:21
鄧明輝事務律師遲找大律師費用俾香港律師會釘牌吊銷執業資格十二個月! 點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能？會俾香港律師會釘牌嗰喎！Not paying Counsel's Fees or being late in paying Barristers is a serious act of misconduct punishable by suspension from practice!
[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]9496735[/attach]
[attach]9496736[/attach]
[attach]9496737[/attach]