AU WING LUN WILLIAM (the 1st Respondent)
HO YUEN KWONG (Clerk) (the 2nd Respondent)

• Principles 5.03, 5.18 and 13.02 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Vol 1 2nd Edition (the Guide)
• Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (SPR)

Hearing dates: 29 June 2004; 6 November 2004; 24 February 2005; 21 April 2005; 26 August 2005; 6 January 2006; 6 and 7 February 2007; 16 and 17 April 2007.
Statement of findings: 9 September 2008. Reasons and order: 11 December 2008.

On 9 September 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaints against the Respondents proved:

Against the 1st Respondent

Charge 1
Breach of principle 5.03 of the Guide and/or Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR in that from around April 2000 to July 2002, the 1st Respondent accepted instructions and acted for nine Mainland residents in their purported application for business visas to travel to and permanent right to stay in Hong Kong when in fact the 1st Respondent had no or insufficient knowledge, experience and competence to undertake such work.

Charge 2
Breach of principle 5.18 of the Guide and/or Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR by failing to be honest and candid in his advice in that the 1st Respondent advised nine Mainland residents that they were entitled to and/or the 1st Respondent could successfully assist them to apply for business visas to travel to and permanent right to stay in Hong Kong when in fact they had no such entitlement and/or the 1st Respondent had no or insufficient knowledge, experience and competence to undertake such work.

Charge 3
Breach of principle 13.02 of the Guide and /or Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR for failing to honour a cheque drawn by the 1st Respondent in connection with his practice.

Charge 4
Breach of rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR by failing to properly supervise his clerk, the 2nd Respondent as a result of which the 2nd Respondent committed misconduct referred to in Complaints 2.1 and 2.2 to the prejudice of his clients.

Against the 2nd Respondent

Charge 1
Breach of principle 5.03 of the Guide and/or Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR in that from around April 2000 to July 2002, the 2nd Respondent, a clerk to Messrs William Au & Co accepted instructions and acted for nine Mainland residents in their purported application for business visas to travel to and permanent right to stay in Hong Kong when in fact the 2nd Respondent had no or insufficient knowledge, experience and competence to undertake such work.

Charge 2
Breach of principle 5.18 of the Guide and/or Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR by failing to be honest and candid in his advice in that the 2nd Respondent advised nine Mainland residents that they were entitled to and/or the 2nd Respondent could successfully assist them to apply for business visas to travel to and permanent right to stay in Hong Kong when in fact they had no such entitlement and/or the 2nd Respondent had no or insufficient knowledge, experience and competence to undertake such work.

On 11 December 2008, the Tribunal ordered that:
1. the 1st Respondent be fined a global sum of HK$200,000;
2. the 1st Respondent be restricted, for a period of two years from the date when this Order takes effect, from practising as a sole proprietor or partner of any solicitors firm, and can only practise as a solicitor under the close supervision of another solicitor of at
least 10 years’ standing;
3. the 2nd Respondent be fined a global sum of HK$80,000;
4. the 2nd Respondent be prohibited from being employed by any solicitors firm for a period of 5 years from the date when this order takes effect; and
5. two-thirds of the costs of the proceedings be borne severally by the 1st Respondent as to two-thirds thereof and as to one-third thereof be borne by the 2nd Respondent.

Mr Ludwig Ng of Messrs Or, Ng & Chan and, since 6 January 2006, Mr Jat Sew-tong SC instructed by Messrs Or, Ng & Chan. Mr William Allan instructed by Messrs Anthony YL Au & Co and, since 6 February 2007, Mr Erik Shum for the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent was in person and appeared at the hearing until the adjourned hearing on 6 February 2007 when he failed to appear, and since then the hearing continued in his absence.

Tribunal Members:
Mr Dominic Lai (Chairman)
Mr Raymond K M Yip
Miss Virginia CY Chan

[The 1st Respondent lodged an appeal against the Tribunal Order on 29 December 2008. On 3 July 2009, the Court of Appeal varied the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by ordering that each of the nine complainants should be reimbursed HK$12,000 and the fine of HK$200,000 originally imposed against the 1st Respondent should be reduced by the amounts that are paid to the nine complainants.

Save as the aforesaid, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs in favour of the Law Society.]

CHE WAI HANG ALLEN (the Respondent)

• Rule 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules
• Governing Principle in Chapter 7 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’Guide to Professional Conduct Vol 1 2nd Edition

Hearing dates: 6 and 7 November 2006.
Findings and order: 6 February 2008.
Order (on sentence and costs): 8 May 2008.

On 6 February 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found complaints 1 and 2 against the Respondent proved:

Charge 1
Breach of rule 2(a), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (SPC) and/or the Governing Principle in Chapter 7 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Vol 1 2nd Edition (the Guide) in that the Respondent asked his client to sign two documents in favour of his firm which were contrary to the client’s interest.

Charge 2
Breach of rule 2(b) of the SPC in that the Respondent asked his client to sign two documents which restricted its freedom to instruct a solicitor of its choice.

On 8 May 2008, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the Respondent:
1. be censured in respect of Complaint 1 and Complaint 2;
2. shall pay 70% of all costs of and incidental to these proceedings to be taxed if not agreed; and
3. shall pay the costs of the application for specific discovery made by him to be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Ludwig Ng of Messrs Or, Ng & Chan for the Law Society of Hong Kong.
Mr Mok Yeuk Chi instructed by Messrs Wong, Hui & Co for the Respondent.

Tribunal Members:
Mr William Alvin Hui (Chairman)
Mr Lam Wing Wo
Mr Leung Chi Ming

[The Respondent lodged an appeal against the Tribunal Order (CACV 149/2008). On 16 June 2009, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment: upheld the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to censure the Respondent; costs ordered at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was varied and limited to HK$400,000 in total including
the discovery application; the Respondent was to pay 50% of the Law Society’s costs of the appeal.]