文章

Cheung Yan & Associates Solicitor Desmond Cheung Sued By Other Lawyers 張德民律師俾法律界行家告上法庭 [2022] HKCFI 78

Cheung Yan & Associates Solicitor Desmond Cheung Sued By Other Lawyers 張德民律師俾法律界行家告上法庭 [2022] HKCFI 78  https://www.msoa.hk/index.php/industrynews/details/hk/1364 中環一間律師樓發生內鬨，一名合夥律師被指於前年偽造172份帳單，並在未獲授權下將客戶的款項轉帳至自己名下，涉款逾千萬元，導致律師樓超額開支。該名律師的合夥人昨入稟高等法院，向律師及其助理等人索償。原告人林少新和李摩西均為張永賢 • 李黃林律師行的合夥人，7名被告依次為合夥人張德民和趙思瑋、張的助手Ida Chan（Ida）及律師樓的助理會計師Wai Kit Shun（Shun）、會計經理Lai Yip Wah Alan（Alan）、文員Tam Man Chun Raymond（Raymond）和前顧問殷麗瑜。入稟狀指，張德民以律師樓名義開設公司銀行戶口，但原告對此並不知情。張於前年6月向律師樓的客戶開出172張假帳單，帳單的發單日期大多為2008年，均用舊款設計，實際上卻無發送予客戶。張於同月30日動用逾112.5萬元的客戶資金「埋單」，將錢存入其控制的公司銀行戶口，再於翌月從中提款。原告調查後發現，張德民早於2010年已利用相同手段擅取客戶逾663.6萬元，涉及逾1100宗案件，卻無人記錄曾經開單。另一方面，張控制的公司戶口於2008年至2016年間滾存逾千萬元，張利用款項償還按揭貸款和繳交差餉；張又曾多次匯款至另一個由他控制、存有50萬元的公司戶口，並透過Shun以律師樓名義開支票動用款項。張德民在原告質詢後自認違反《律師帳目規則》，並由妻子代發112.5萬元支票予律師樓。此外，張與趙思瑋於今年初取消受影響客戶的帳單，並指示Alan修改帳目，但事前未得原告知悉和同意。 原告續指，張德民與趙思瑋私下設立「秘密佣金制」，每月以娛樂開支名義，向殷麗瑜等人發放過萬元佣金。原告欲向Alan等人查詢詳情，卻遭張、趙二人阻撓。直至今年9月，兩人提出解散律師樓，原告雖同意解散，但要求延遲解散日期。兩人卻擅自通知律師會、律師樓業主和所有員工，律師樓將於12月解散。 Lam Siu Sun Dennis and Another v. Cheung...
發佈留言
閱讀更多

Haldanes Solicitors Uselessly Used Wrong Procedure To Add a Defamation Counterclaim to a Defence

Haldanes Solicitors Uselessly Used Wrong Procedure To Add a Defamation Counterclaim to a Defence, And Should Pay Indemnity Costs to Its Opponent, Says Judge Queeny Au-Yeung in HCA 492/2020 [2021] HKCFI 1040 - DEEPAK PAGARANI AND HIRO BHARWANI v. HALDANES SOLICITORS & NOTARIES (A FIRM)   Ms Jezamine Fewins, of Stephenson Harwood, for the plaintiffs Mr Barry Barlow, SC, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, for the defendant https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=135819&currpage=T
發佈留言
閱讀更多

Chung & Kwan Solicitors Uselessly Got the Law Completely Wrong - Incompetent Law Firm?

Chung & Kwan Solicitors Uselessly Got the Law Completely Wrong - Incompetent Law Firm? [2021] HKLdT 37 - LDBM 56/2020 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=135933&currpage=T //On 11 May 2020 the respondent’s then solicitors, Messrs Chung & Kwan, gave a reply letter and refused to convene such a meeting on the ground, inter alia, that convening such meeting is not an exemption under the Regulation as the IO is not a statutory body.    The same contention was repeated in paragraph 8(d) of the respondent’s Notice of Opposition filed on 22 July 2020... ... the Secretary for Food and Health has clarified and confirmed that the requested meeting would be an exempted group gathering under Schedule 1 of the Regulation, and in particular paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 1 of the Regulation is applicable to the requested meeting as contended by the applicant. ... It is clear that paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 1 would be able to give an exemption for the respo...
發佈留言
閱讀更多

Cap Chan & Co Solicitors (陳少青律師事務所) Ordered to Pay Wasted Costs for Conducting Hopeless Proceedings

Cap Chan & Co Solicitors ( 陳少青律師事務所 ) Ordered to Pay Wasted Costs for Conducting Hopeless Proceedings - So Kam ( 蘇金 ) v Guildford Ltd [2021] 2 HKLRD 319 [2021] HKDC 340 - HHJ Andrew Li https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=134391&currpage=T
發佈留言
閱讀更多

Barrister Sio Chan In Devin Heavily Criticized By Court

蕭震然大律師俾法官狂鬧 ! Barrister Sio Chan In Devin Heavily Criticized! https://lawyersinhk.blogspot.com/2020/10/barrister-devin-sio-heavily-criticized-by-the-court.html?m=1 https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/4/203459/Barrister-rapped-for-being-on-back-foot Deputy judge Ho Chun-yiu asked Devin Sio Chan-in, who represents Chan Tin-yau, whether he was prepared to defend his client, to which Sio stuttered and said he had not prepared speeches for similar cases in the past. He told Ho that he hoped the court would adjourn the case until they obtained the report on the girl. In a rare outburst, the judge asked: "You know it's time to plead today, right? I may hand down the sentence today! How can you not prepare anything?" "How many years have you been a barrister?" Ho asked. "Seven," Sio replied in a softspoken voice. Sio was also criticized for not knowing about the injuries to the four-year-old victim. He admitted that he was not prepared with reg...
發佈留言
閱讀更多

黃纓淇大律師俾法官鬧兩句就喊到豬頭咁冇鬼用不如妳成熟啲先至出嚟執業啦妹妹仔！影衰晒成個法律界！

黃纓淇大律師俾法官鬧兩句就喊到豬頭咁冇鬼用不如妳成熟啲先至出嚟執業啦妹妹仔！影衰晒成個法律界！ https://m.mingpao.com/ins/ 港聞 /article/20210625/s00001/1624622294099/3 男涉非法集結案 - 裁判官頻介入盤問被疑偏頗 - 辯方要求避席申請被駁回 FLCC 895/2020 [2021] HKMagC 9 主審裁判官：裁判官陳炳宙 裁決日期：2021年9月16日  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=138753&currpage=T 186.  當本席作為裁判官，察覺盤問時的問題對證人不公平，自當有責任指出，因為公平的審訊不單止要對被告人公平，也要對控方證人公平。當黃大律師錯誤引述證人的證供時，本席自然有責任提出。當黃大律師所提出的問題存在含糊之處，本席亦有責任要求她先澄清。 187.  控方梅大律師認為黃大律師在盤問第二控方證人時，有關證物D3的問題不公平，所以主動提出反對，指證人在主問階段只被要求畫出「大約位置」在證物P34a(iii)上。當時黃大律師沒有反駁代表控方的梅大律師。那麼，她便是接受自己的問題的確不妥，亦不認為本席須介入。如果她認為自己的問題沒有不妥，她可以繼續陳詞，據理力爭，說服本席。本席從來沒有阻止她陳詞。而且，她隨後的確成功利用了該地圖來繼續對證人作出盤問。 188.  現在黃大律師聲稱梅大律師的反對基礎不正確，因為梅大律師的確要求警員畫出準確的位置。本席認為，現階段無需決定梅大律師有否犯錯。本席在黃大律師口頭陳詞時，曾經向她解釋本席的腦袋並非超級電腦，無可能清楚記得整個審訊中每一個人的每一句說話。姑且假設梅大律師的反對是基於錯誤地引述主問的問題，既然連黃大律師自己也沒有反駁梅大律師，並表現得接受梅大律師的反對理由，現在卻反過來指責本席不即時介入，阻止梅大律師的不公平反對，便是對本席不公平。黃大律師最終撤回她這項不公平的指責。 189.  本席的確在梅大律師反對盤問的問題時，向梅大律師表達自己對年輕一代大律師的不滿，但那些說話並非嘲諷或責備黃大律師，而只是為安撫這名具豐富經驗的梅大律師，希望他稍安毋躁，不必經常對黃大律師的一些問題提出反對。...
發佈留言
閱讀更多

Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction

方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格  - Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction https://lawyersinhk.blogspot.com/2020/10/barrister-candy-fong-misconduct-conviction.html?m=1 https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20081222/egn200812223579.pdf
發佈留言
閱讀更多