Tag: Law Society

  • Law Firm Representing Film Studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC Accused Of Bullying

    Law Firm Representing Film Studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC Accused Of Bullying

    The local chapter of a non-governmental organisation promoting the use of Internet has lodged a complaint with the Law Society, against lawyers from the legal firm representing the United States film studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC.

    The studio is going after people here who allegedly downloaded the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club illegally, and the first batch of demand letters issued to 77 M1 subscribers by the lawyers from Samuel Seow Law Corporation had used threats of criminal proceedings to advance civil claims, thus breaching the Law Society’s ethical guidelines for legal practitioners, said the Internet Society (Singapore)’s president Harish Pillay, who personally handed the written complaint to the Law Society last week.

    The complaint is against Mr Robert Raj Joseph and Mr Lee Heng Eam from Samuel Seow Law Corp’s litigation and dispute resolution practice group. Mr Raj is the director of the group while Mr Lee is an associate. When contacted, Mr Raj said he is on leave and referred this newspaper to the firm’s managing director Samuel Seow.

    Mr Seow told TODAY he has no knowledge of the complaint. He added that the demand letters, which were first sent out in April, were issued by Mr Raj, who is leaving the company and has been placed on gardening leave. Mr Raj’s departure is not linked to the handling of the case, Mr Seow said. He added that he and a “new team” took over the case file from Mr Raj just last week.

    Mr Seow said his law firm recently sent out a new batch of letters — which were worded differently — to StarHub and Singtel subscribers who allegedly downloaded the movie illegally.

    The demand letters issued to the M1 subscribers had asked for a written offer of damages and costs, and Mr Raj said in April the studio had received and accepted “quite a number of” offers of compensation. These letters had spelt out a maximum fine of S$50,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years for a conviction under Section 136(3) of the Copyright Act, and a maximum S$20,000 fine and six months’ jail term under Section 136(3A) of the Act.

    Mr Pillay, who works in the information technology industry, said the demand letters were worded in the manner of a “big bully”, and the law firm had engaged in a “bad bullying tactic”.

    “These words make people panic, especially those who are not legally trained … They are blaming people of alleged transgression without proof … Those who are a bit naive will settle,” said Mr Pillay. He noted that some alleged offenders may have made compensations without seeking legal help.

    The Law Society’s Practice Directions and Rulings Guide 2013 states that it is improper for a solicitor to “communicate in writing or otherwise a threat of criminal proceedings in order to achieve a stated objective in any circumstance, for example, to compel a witness to attend at the solicitor’s office to give a statement or to sign a written statement despatched to him”.

    Contacted by TODAY, the Law Society declined to comment on the complaint. Its spokesperson said the society was bound by the Legal Profession Act to maintain confidentiality of proceedings that are being conducted.

    “The Law Society is therefore unable to comment if it has or has not received a complaint against any named lawyer or the status of any complaint received,” said the spokesperson.

    Apart from Singapore, Dallas Buyers Club LLC has also started legal action in Australia and the US, where it is going after more than 4,700 and 1,000 Internet users, respectively. It had reportedly identified more than 500 Singapore IP addresses here through which the movie was said to have been downloaded illegally.

    The Internet Society (Singapore) said there are alternative ways of encouraging legitimate content distribution. Lawyer Bryan Tan, who is the chapter’s treasurer, said that with the prevalence of the Internet, work will be copied and shared, and the question is how to legitimise such practices. The Creative Commons licensing system, which allows content creators to decide if their work can be modified or shared under commercial or non-commercial grounds, was set up to address this problem, Mr Pillay pointed out. “In this day and age, everything is a remix,” he said.


    Background

    The Dallas Buyers Club saga

    • Film studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC is going after people here who allegedly downloaded Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club illegally
    • First batch of demand letters were issued to 77 M1 subscribers by Samuel Seow Law Corporation
    • Dallas Buyers Club LLC has also started legal action in Australia and the US, where it is going after more than 4,700 and 1,000 Internet users, respectively
    • It had reportedly identified more than 500 Singapore IP addresses here through which the movie was said to have been illegally downloaded

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • M Ravi Apologises To The Law Society

    M Ravi Apologises To The Law Society

    Lawyer M. Ravi on Wednesday apologised for claiming that the Law Society’s counsel shouted at him and assaulted him during a hearing in February.

    Mr Ravi, who has been suspended from practice following concerns about his mental health, attended a hearing in High Court in February after the Law Society of Singapore, represented by Shook Lin and Bok lawyer Pradeep Pillai, applied to have his practicing certificate suspended and to compel him to undergo a medical examination.

    In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Mr Ravi said: “I had published a media statement…(which) stated that during the hearing, Mr Pillai had shouted at me and assaulted me. My statement was malicious, utterly and demonstrably false…Both Mr Pillai and his team of lawyers had acted with decorum at all times during the hearing.”

    He added: “I accept that my statement was defamatory. I hereby unreservedly and unconditionally apologise to Mr Pillai. I further undertake not to repeat my statement.”

    When contacted by The Straits Times, Mr Pillai declined to comment further.

    He said: “The apology speaks for itself.”

    A spokesman for the Law Society added: “The Law Society always maintained that Mr M. Ravi’s allegation was false… The (society) is glad that Mr Pillai has been vindicated.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Law Society Produces Pamphlet To Inform Of Rights And Investigation Process Carried Out By Police

    Law Society Produces Pamphlet To Inform Of Rights And Investigation Process Carried Out By Police

    The Law Society has produced a Pamphlet of Rights to provide basic information on the relevant rights a person has when being questioned by the police and the process they should expect during investigations.

    In a news release on Tuesday (Apr 14), the Law Society said the pamphlet is “important and necessary” because information about legal rights during investigations may not be easy for members of the public to find or understand.

    “In 2013, the Law Society’s Criminal Practice Committee began work on a “Pamphlet of Rights” for members of the public,” said the release. “The idea was to provide basic information in a condensed and ‘simple to understand’ form to the public.”

    The pamphlet covers information about legal rights during investigation, search of possessions and property, prosecution and also legal aid.

    Pamphlet of Rights is currently being distributed to community clubs and police stations where it will soon be made available to members of the public and people who are arrested or brought in for questioning by the police.

    The pamphlet was produced through the engagement of various stakeholders in criminal justice system such as the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Home Affairs, with support from the Ministry of Law.The Law Society said it hopes to make it available in as many public locations as possible.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Law Society Orders M Ravi To Stop Legal Practice Pending Medical Examination

    Law Society Orders M Ravi To Stop Legal Practice Pending Medical Examination

    The Law Society of Singapore has ordered lawyer M Ravi to stop his legal practice pending a medical examination.

    “The Council of the Law Society has received information relating to Mr M Ravi’s impaired fitness to practise and has issued a direction that Mr Ravi stop his legal practice pending a medical examination pursuant to Section 25C(7) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Ed),” said the Law Society in response to media queries on Tuesday (Feb 10).

    Mr Ravi had reportedly been diagnosed since 2006 with bipolar disorder — which is punctuated by episodes of mania and depression — and was suspended from practising for a year in 2006.

    When contacted by TODAY, Mr Ravi said he previously saw his doctor last Monday and he was not uncertified unfit for practice. He added he submitted his monthly medical report two weeks ago stating that he is well and also successfully argued a magistrates’ appeal a few days ago.

    “My doctor has not certified me unfit for practice, therefore this comes as a surprise,” said Mr Ravi, in a text message. “I’m consulting my psychiatrist today and will sort this out.”

    Separately, the wife of one of the three men charged with disorderly behaviour at the Thaipusam procession on Feb 3, R Angelina, sent an email to the media on Tuesday saying that she had filed an application to the High Court on Feb 5 regarding the Thaipusam incident.

    The application listed the Attorney-General, the Hindu Endowments Board and Law Minister K Shanmugam among the defendents. Mr Ravi is listed as the solicitor in charge of the application.

    In response, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said it has filed an application to strike out Ms Angelina’s application.

    “The Attorney-General’s Chambers has filed an application on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Law to strike out the Plaintiff’s application on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and is an abuse of process,” it said in a media release on Tuesday.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com