Re A Barrister

HCMP002087/1986

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date of Judgment: : 24th October, 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an application by the Bar Committee to the court to exercise its power under section 32 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, to strike off, suspend from practice or otherwise deal with a barrister who has been guilty of misconduct.

2. The Bar Committee based its application on three forms of misconduct alleged against the barrister concerned, to whom I will refer as 'Mr. A.'

3. Firstly, that Mr. A appeared in a number of matters during 1986, when he did not hold a valid practising certificate qualifying him to practise in Hong Kong.

4. Secondly, that Mr. A was adjudicated bankrupt in proceedings in No.558 of 1985 and that another bankruptcy petition in proceedings No.524 of 1985 has been lodged by a different creditor.

5. Thirdly, that Mr. A had practised as such while not a member of professional chambers in Hong Kong.

6. Mr. A, who appeared in person before me, conceded that all these allegations were correct.

7. I regard the first and third complaints as of a less serious nature than the second one. Practising without a certificate and not maintaining professional chambers are, within the context of the profession itself, matters of some significance, though I do not consider that they will usually, by themselves, warrant more than a suspension.

8. The second subject of complaint, namely, the bankruptcy of Mr. A is a much more serious matter. It is widely recognized, not only here but in other jurisdictions, that a bankrupt barrister ought not to be permitted to practise during the period of his bankruptcy.

9. The Bar Committee has taken a merciful view, with which I am glad to say I feel able to agree, that a proper order to make on this application would be an order for indefinite suspension, with liberty to Mr. A to apply to the court for the lifting of that suspension at any time after twelve months from today, if he can show that the receiving order made against him has been discharged.

10. Mr. A himself did not dispute that such an order would, in the circumstances, be a just one and I therefore order accordingly.

Representation:

Mr. N. Aiken (C.Y. Kwan & Co.) for Bar Committee

Respondent barrister in person.