Lo Wai Yan Winnie (盧蔚恩) (the Respondent)

• Principle 14.02 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, Volume 1, 2nd Edition (the Guide)

Findings and order: 22 September 2011

The Respondent admitted to the two complaints (‘the Complaints’) and agreed to the Summaries of Facts filed by the Applicant (‘the Summaries of Facts’).

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal did not hold a formal hearing but considered the written submissions from both parties and the Summaries of Facts and found the Complaints against the Respondent proved on her own admission.

1st Complaint
Breach of Principle 14.02 of the Guide in that the Respondent, being the handling partner of the case at the material time when the Respondent’s firm, Messrs Winnie Lo & Wong (‘the Firm’), acted for the vendor in a property transaction, failed to comply with the undertaking to deliver a Discharge and an existing Mortgage within 21 days, and a certified copy of the Memorandum for a Car Port Layout Plan within 45 days as stipulated in the letter dated 30 January
2008 from the purchaser’s solicitors.

2nd Complaint
Breach of Principle 14.02 of the Guide in that the Respondent, being the handling partner of the case at the material time when the Firm acted for the purchaser in a property transaction, failed to comply with the undertaking imposed on her in the letter from the vendor’s solicitors dated 4 February 2008 to deliver to the vendor’s solicitors immediately on demand all the title deeds and documents after the Respondent had made certified copies thereof at her client’s costs.

The Tribunal, having considered the Respondent’s submissions in mitigation, ordered that the Respondent:

(a) be censured and fined HK$15,000 in relation to the 1st Complaint;
(b) be censured and fined HK$15,000 in relation to the 2nd Complaint; and
(c) pay the costs of these proceedings within 21 days from the date of this Order, in the following agreed sums:

(i) HK$47,989.98 to the Law Society;
(ii) HK$40,000.00 to the Prosecutor; and
(iii) HK$26,988.20 to the Clerk.

Mr David Cheung Chi Wai of Messsrs KH Yuen & David Cheung for the Law Society.
Messrs ST Poon & Wong for the Respondent.

Tribunal Members:
Mr Lam Wing Wo (Chairman)
Mr Yuen Tat Tong
Mr Cheung Kwong Tat

Au Wing Lun William (區穎麟) (the Respondent)

• Rule 2(d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules

Hearing date: 24 August 2011
Findings and orders: 21 September 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following Complaint against the Respondent proved on his own admission:

Complaint
Breach of Rule 2(d) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules in that the Respondent had failed to comply with an Order made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 2 March 2010 requiring him to pay a fine of HK$80,000 to the general revenue and consequently has conducted himself in such a way that compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair his own reputation or the reputation of the profession.

In light of the mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent:

(a) be censured;
(b) be fined HK$3000; and
(c) pay the costs of these proceedings including the costs of the Law Society, the Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Tribunal, to be taxed on a party-and-party basis if not agreed.

Mr Joseph Li of Messrs Joseph Li & Co for the Law Society.
The Respondent appeared in person.

Tribunal Members:
Mr Tan Chuen Yan Paul (Chairman)
Ms Kwok Kit Yee Belinda
Mrs Fu Kwong Wing Ting, Francine

Burke Patrick Michael (畢保麒) (R1)
Fung Shu Wah (馮樹華) (R2)
Li Ping Fai Tommy (利炳輝) (R3)

• Section 8 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) (LPO)
• Rule 8 of the Accountant’s Report Rules (the ARR)
• Principle 2.03 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, Volume 1 (the Guide)
• Rule 2(d) and (e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (the SPR)

Hearing dates: 8 March 2011, 2 June 2011 and 4 August 2011
Findings and order: 19 October 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two Complaints against the Respondents proved on their own admissions:

The 1st Complaint
Breaches of s 8 of the LPO, Rule 8 of the ARR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide in that the Respondents, being the three proprietors of Messrs Burke, Fung & Li (‘the Closed Firm’), failed to provide the final accountant’s report within six months of the Closed Firm ceasing business (the Closed Firm ceased practice on 30 September 2007).

The 2nd Complaint
Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR in that the conduct of the Respondents compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair their own reputation or the reputation of the profession and a proper standard of work.

Having considered the Respondents’ respective mitigation submissions (including the fact that the Closed Firm had filed its final accountant’s report with the Law Society on 12 July 2011), the Tribunal ordered that:

(a) all the Respondents be censured;
(b) each Respondent be fined a sum of HK$60,000 for the 1st and 2nd Complaints; and
(c) all costs of these proceedings and prior investigation including the costs of the Clerk, the Prosecutor and the Law Society, be borne by the Respondents and to be taxed on party and party basis if not agreed.

Mr Geoffrey Shaw of Messrs Deacons (from March 2011 to July 2011) and Messrs Haley & Co (from August 2011 onwards) for the Applicant.
At the hearings of 8 March and 2 June 2011, R1 and R2 appeared in person and R3 was represented by Counsel, Mr Jackson Poon.
At the hearing of 4 August 2011, R1 appeared in person and R2 and R3 were represented by Counsel, Mr Albert Luk.

Tribunal Members:
Mr Ma Kwok Keung, Kenneth (Chairman)
Ms Lun Pong Hing, Winnie
Mr Tang Ka Ming, Nelson