Third Charge

That you, Koh Tien Hua, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or about 28 December 2017, you did omit to mention in your letter dated 28 December 2017 addressed to the Attorney-General’s Chambers that you had, on or around 26 December 2017, disseminated the brief grounds of decision dated 26 December 2017 issued by the District Judge Shobha G Nair in Originating Summons (Adoption) No 355 of 2014 to persons who were not party to the proceedings (i.e., members of the media) despite a direct query from the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the same in its letter dated 28 December 2017 addressed to you, and by such omission, conveyed the inaccurate impression that you and/or your firm were not involved in and/or responsible for the dissemination of the brief grounds to the members of the media, such dishonest conduct amounting to a violation of the principles set out in Rule 9(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, S 706/2015) regarding a legal practitioner’s duty to always be truthful and accurate in his communications with any person involved in or associated with any proceedings before a court, and therefore amounting to improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor within meaning of Section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed).

The Law Society of Singapore v Koh Tien Hua [2020] SGDT 6

If interested read [52]-[57] and draw your own conclusions. I have no opinion on this matter.