Mar 10, 2011
Socialist Front leader guilty of professional misconduct
Lawyer's blog postings breached ethical rules, in contempt of court
By Yen Feng
Mr Chia (left) and Socialist Front chairman Ng Teck Siong at the meeting of opposition parties last week. The charges against Mr Chia, which were filed by the Law Society following a complaint from the AGC, relate to blog postings he wrote between June 2008 and June 2009. -- ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI
A DISCIPLINARY tribunal has found opposition party leader and lawyer Chia Ti Lik guilty of professional misconduct.
As a result, the 36-year-old will face a fine.
The tribunal, which released its report yesterday, found Mr Chia guilty of five charges brought against him by the Law Society of Singapore. Two other charges were dismissed.
The charges were filed by the society following a complaint from the Attorney- General's Chambers (AGC). They relate to blog postings the leader of the Socialist Front wrote between June 2008 and June 2009.
The report said that his comments had breached ethical rules and were in contempt of court, adding that they also 'cast doubt on the integrity of the judiciary and judicial processes'.
Most of the five charges involved Mr Chia when he was acting for members of opposition parties.
Two were related to his representation of former Singaporean lawyer and Workers' Party election candidate Gopalan Nair, in 2008, during which Mr Nair was found guilty of insulting a judge.
In a blog posting dated June 2008, Mr Chia hinted that the judgment was politically motivated. Moreover, his comments were made as the case was ongoing.
In another blog posting dated September 2008, Mr Chia wrote about Ms Chee Siok Chin, the sister of the Singapore Democratic Party chief, Dr Chee Soon Juan.
Mr Chia implied that the Attorney-General and the Supreme Court Registry had acted together - inappropriately - to disallow Ms Chee's appeal to travel overseas for a conference.
All this, the tribunal found, had the intended effect of persuading readers to question the integrity of the court.
In the two other charges in which Mr Chia was found guilty, the report said that comments Mr Chia had written in his blog about the AGC implied that its decisions in two separate cases - one involving an illegal assembly, and another of three persons Mr Chia was defending in 2008 for contempt of court - were politically motivated and unfair.
The latter case involved three persons who wore T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judges' robes on Supreme Court premises.
Mr Chia said on his blog that the AGC should also have prosecuted The Straits Times for publishing an article which included a picture of the trio.
He said that the AGC did not do so because it was 'restrained and in awe of a mere Straits Times'.
Of the total seven charges faced by Mr Chia, two were dismissed by the tribunal.
The first was related to a letter that he had written to the AGC asking to see video footage that allegedly caught the defendants in the kangaroo T-shirt case, wearing the T-shirts, on tape.
He said that the letter may be made public 'due to the importance, the urgency and the sensitivity of the matter'.
The AGC viewed the letter as a threat. It responded to Mr Chia, saying: 'Do not presume to threaten these Chambers with publication of the correspondence.'
Mr Chia wrote back to say he did not threaten the AGC, and did not intend to do so. In this matter, the tribunal agreed with Mr Chia. It said: 'Insofar as there is some ambiguity in the language in the Respondent's letter, we give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt.
'In these circumstances, we find that the first charge has not been made out.'
The second charge that was dismissed involved a case Mr Chia was on in 2009. In that case involving a blogger who posted an article online about Molotov cocktails, Mr Chia had blogged about the case - while it was ongoing.
The report said, however, that this did not amount to misconduct.
The charges that Mr Chia has been found guilty of warrant a fine - but not more. His case could have been referred by the tribunal to the Court of Three Judges, which would have the power to disbar him from the practice of law.
The tribunal, however, found that there was 'no cause of sufficient gravity' for that. It noted, however, that in addition to the fine, Mr Chia must pay the Law Society $3,000 in costs.
All cases of misconduct by lawyers fall under the Legal Profession Act. Prior to Mr Chia's cases appearing before the disciplinary tribunal - which is convened by the Chief Justice to investigate complaints about lawyers' conduct - they were also reviewed by two other independent committees, which are not part of the Law Society.
Mr Chia told The Straits Times last night that he would approach the Law Society on the penalty and cost.
Asked to comment on the penalty, a society spokesman said it was unable to do so as confidentiality in such disciplinary matters was required under the Legal Profession Act.
zengyan@sph.com.sg
the sad consequence of the dreadful longkang prophesy for chiasai had finally been fulfilled.
chiasai was always in the news for the wrong reasons. worst, he thought those were the patriotic and chilvarious deeds instead of the detrimental.
would he ever learn?
time would tell but probably being a stubborn, arrogant and rash lawyer, i doubt he would learn his lesson. he could aggravate into a more bitter person like master chee and bear more hurtful consequences.
if only he would just humble himself so that his angry heart was calmer and realised the follies that he directly or unwittingly involved himself foolishly in.
in love, he failed. he defaulted and his wifey left him. he mixed up with a fishmonger's wife, got bashed up and whether after being the unofficial CONDOM HEROES in the martial art fraternity ended happily ever after. that was still a real mystery. they were seldom seen together ranting in public with the sdppies. lamui now did it alone. chiasai wasn't seen close or present with her.
dark clouds were now looming over chia sai. he faced the prospect of losing his si ye or law adviser license to practise.
whether such consequences was deserving to a young and new si ye was anyone's guesses?
did the leegime bring this suffering to chia sai or did he sow and reao the retribulation himself? your guess is as good as mine :(
