He was helping former business partner placate wife over $150,000 loss
By K.C. Vijayan 25 September 2009
To help a former business partner in trouble, a lawyer came up with two fake draft court judgments.
For pulling off the charade, Mr. Dixon Ng, in his 40s, has already gone before a Disciplinary Committee, which probed the case of ‘grave professional misconduct’ but has now put it before a Court of Three Judges.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind in recent times.
In the worst-case scenario, the three-judge court, which hears cases against errant lawyers, could disbar him from practice.
The story of how he came up with this way of helping his former business partner was summed up by the Disciplinary Committee as a ‘wife placation exercise’.
Mr. Dixon Ng’s former business partner, Mr. Vincent Ng, was an engineer who ran his own firm, JCV Consultants, and was a director of another engineering services firm, R.J. Crocker Consultants.
These companies had filed claims against two other companies, purportedly for non-payment after services were delivered.
Mr. Dixon Ng was Mr. Vincent Ng’s lawyer in the case of JCV Consultants against Nortel, and also for another case which pitted R.J. Crocker Consultants against Singapore Agro Agricultural.
Outside of Mr. Vincent Ng’s legal battles, however, his marriage was in difficulties because of an affair he allegedly had with a Shanghainese lounge hostess who had run off with $150,000 belonging to his wife, Dixon said.
To help Mr. Vincent Ng placate her, Mr. Dixon Ng allegedly produced the two ‘judgments’ in January 2006. These falsely stated that $70,000 was coming from the Nortel claim and $50,000, from the Singapore Agro Agricultural claim.
In reality, neither of the cases had reached the courts. The amounts cited in the ‘judgments’, purportedly issued by the Subordinate Courts, were made up to give Mr. Vincent Ng’s wife the impression that an amount close to what she had lost was coming in.
The ruse might have worked, except that ties between the two former partners soured, for reasons that are unclear, two months later. Mr. Vincent Ng subsequently complained to the Law Society against his friend.
Mr. Dixon Ng, who pleaded guilty to two charges, said earlier in his defence that the documents were only draft court orders and not actual judgments, and that he had made them up to help his client placate his wife.
He added that he and Mr. Vincent Ng were buddies, and that he treated him like a brother.
He also claimed he had not been hired by Mr. Vincent Ng to pursue claims and that the production of the drafts was not done in the course of his professional duties as his lawyer.
The Disciplinary Committee chaired by Senior Counsel Goh Phai Cheng accepted that the documents had been created for the ‘wife placation exercise’, but held in its report that there was clearly an
‘element of deceit’ in the lawyer’s action, which was ‘dishonest and unbefitting’ of a member of the legal profession.
‘His conduct struck at the administration of justice. As an officer of the court, he was duty-bound to uphold the integrity of the system... Instead, he had done otherwise.’
1 comment:
Lawyer in trouble over fake court judgments
He was helping former business partner placate wife over $150,000 loss
By K.C. Vijayan
25 September 2009
To help a former business partner in trouble, a lawyer came up with two fake draft court judgments.
For pulling off the charade, Mr. Dixon Ng, in his 40s, has already gone before a Disciplinary Committee, which probed the case of ‘grave professional misconduct’ but has now put it before a Court of Three Judges.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind in recent times.
In the worst-case scenario, the three-judge court, which hears cases against errant lawyers, could disbar him from practice.
The story of how he came up with this way of helping his former business partner was summed up by the Disciplinary Committee as a ‘wife placation exercise’.
Mr. Dixon Ng’s former business partner, Mr. Vincent Ng, was an engineer who ran his own firm, JCV Consultants, and was a director of another engineering services firm, R.J. Crocker Consultants.
These companies had filed claims against two other companies, purportedly for non-payment after services were delivered.
Mr. Dixon Ng was Mr. Vincent Ng’s lawyer in the case of JCV Consultants against Nortel, and also for another case which pitted R.J. Crocker Consultants against Singapore Agro Agricultural.
Outside of Mr. Vincent Ng’s legal battles, however, his marriage was in difficulties because of an affair he allegedly had with a Shanghainese lounge hostess who had run off with $150,000 belonging to his wife, Dixon said.
To help Mr. Vincent Ng placate her, Mr. Dixon Ng allegedly produced the two ‘judgments’ in January 2006. These falsely stated that $70,000 was coming from the Nortel claim and $50,000, from the Singapore Agro Agricultural claim.
In reality, neither of the cases had reached the courts. The amounts cited in the ‘judgments’, purportedly issued by the Subordinate Courts, were made up to give Mr. Vincent Ng’s wife the impression that an amount close to what she had lost was coming in.
The ruse might have worked, except that ties between the two former partners soured, for reasons that are unclear, two months later. Mr. Vincent Ng subsequently complained to the Law Society against his friend.
Mr. Dixon Ng, who pleaded guilty to two charges, said earlier in his defence that the documents were only draft court orders and not actual judgments, and that he had made them up to help his client placate his wife.
He added that he and Mr. Vincent Ng were buddies, and that he treated him like a brother.
He also claimed he had not been hired by Mr. Vincent Ng to pursue claims and that the production of the drafts was not done in the course of his professional duties as his lawyer.
The Disciplinary Committee chaired by Senior Counsel Goh Phai Cheng accepted that the documents had been created for the ‘wife placation exercise’, but held in its report that there was clearly an
‘element of deceit’ in the lawyer’s action, which was ‘dishonest and unbefitting’ of a member of the legal profession.
‘His conduct struck at the administration of justice. As an officer of the court, he was duty-bound to uphold the integrity of the system... Instead, he had done otherwise.’
A third charge against the lawyer was dismissed.
Post a Comment