Dong Lei v. The Law Society of Hong Kong

HCMP 1407/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1407 of 2008

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

Before : Hon Ma CJHC in Court

Date of Hearing :   12 August 2008

Date of Judgment  :   12 August 2008

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1.The Applicant applies for an order exempting him from compliance with the requirement of submitting the form known as Form 4 (as prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Admission and Registration Rules Cap. 159B) in relation to that part of his traineeship as a solicitor from 8 October 2007 and 31 December 2007.  No problems arise in relation to the balance of the requisite period as a trainee solicitor.

2.The relevant portion of the traineeship was undertaken by the Applicant with Mr Andrew W Y Ng, the sole proprietor at Messrs Andrew W Y Ng & Co.

3.There are essentially two inquiries for the court (see Fu Sze Ying Mabel v The Law Society of Hong Kong, unreported, HCMP 908/2008, 17 June 2008) : -

(1)    That the underlying objective or purpose of Form 4, being in particular, a satisfactory traineeship and the Applicant being a fit and proper person to be admitted as a solicitor, is in fact fulfilled; and

(2)    There is a cogent reason as to why he is unable to produce a Form 4 to the Law Society.

4.In my view, I am satisfied that both aspects are fulfilled in the present case : -

(1)    The former principal of the Applicant (Mr Ng) confirmed in correspondence with the Law Society that his period of training was satisfactory and that he was prepared to accept the Applicant to be a fit and proper person to be admitted as a solicitor.  This is a view that is shared by the Respondent.  It is also to be noted that the principals of the other periods of traineeship served by the Applicant have signed the relevant Form 4 documents.

(2)    I was at one stage concerned about a previous conviction that the Applicant has for assaulting a police officer.  The incident took place in January 2007.  The offence, however, was committed by the Applicant out of character (this was accepted by the Magistrate) and when he was drunk.  He was fined $1,000 in relation to this offence.  The Respondent is of the view that this incident should not now be held against him.  I am of the view that the Applicant should be given the benefit of a second chance but this sort of behaviour cannot be condoned.  In other circumstances, this might well have been decisive against him in the application he has made.  To be fair, the Applicant has the benefit of some impressive reference letters which allude to the January 2007 incident and these have influenced my view of the matter.

(3)    As for the reasons why the Applicant was unable to produce the requisite Form 4, this is ultimately due to the breakdown of communication between the Applicant and his former principal.

5.For these reasons, I would accede to the application and make an order in terms of it.

The Applicant, Dong Lei, acting in person

Mr Ricky S P Ng of the Law Society of Hong Kong for the Respondent