Disgusting Lawyers in Hong Kong

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

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 respondent to

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

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

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。事實上，本席當時提出如果本席對黃大律師的問題作出

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

陳 俊華律師操守有問題大家小心啲 ! C W Chan & Co Solicitors’ Lawyer C W Chan (Chan Chun Wa) Has a Misconduct Issue  https://m.discuss.com.hk/index.php?action=thread&tid=26109375

鄧明輝事務律師遲找大律師費用俾香港律師會釘牌吊銷執業資格十二個月 !  點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能？會俾香港律師會釘牌嗰喎！ Not paying Counsel's Fees or being late in paying Barristers is a serious act of misconduct punishable by suspension from practice! December 2012 - Disciplinary Decisions - Tang Ming Fai, Joseph (the Respondent) • Principles 6.04, 12.04 and 12.05 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Volume 1 (“the Guide”) http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent

蕭震然大律師死得！ Hong Kong Barrister Devin Sio Will Probably Go To Jail!  https://www.hk01.com/ 突發 /671606/ 扮空置屋戶主挪佔業權呃逾 6 千萬 -12 人被捕包括大律師蕭震然夫婦 警方偵破一宗串謀詐騙案， 12 人涉嫌佯稱為空置單位戶主，挪佔業權後透過抵押申請貸款或出售，騙取 6000 多萬元，涉案 8 單位包括一個市建局重建計劃單位。據了解，被捕人包括執業大律師蕭震然與妻子，執業律師衛珮璇及林欣芳。

陳家昇大律師失德行為罪成 Barrister Chan Ka Sing Convicted of Misconduct  On 12 November 2018, two Complaints were lodged with the Convenor of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal (“the BDT”) against Mr. Chan Ka Sing (“Mr. Chan”) concerning his conduct when he was instructed to represent a defendant in High Court Criminal Case No. 145 of 2014 (“the Criminal Case”). The Complaints are, in summary, as follows: (i) Complaint 1: Mr. Chan failed his duty as a practising barrister to be competent in all his professional activities when representing the defendant in the Criminal Case in mitigation. (ii) Complaint 2: Mr. Chan took instructions from the defendant prior to the hearing of the Criminal Case without the presence of the person instructing him or his representatives. Hong Kong Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mr Chan Ka Sing ( 陳家昇大律師 ) admitted to the Complaints in the BDT proceedings.  By a Statement of Findings dated 24 January 2019, the BDT found Mr. Chan guilty of the two Complaints, and ordered that

支聯會鄒幸彤大律師應該要被永久釘牌 ! Harcourt Chambers Barrister Chow Hang Tung Should be Struck Off! https://www.hk01.com/ 社會新聞 /674945/ 支聯會 7 人被控違反港區國安法 - 鄒幸彤與 4 常委保釋全被拒 警方國安處昨引《港區國安法》起訴 7 名支聯會相關人士，並分兩案提控，其中該會的主席李卓人   、副主席何俊仁、鄒幸彤，被指涉煽惑他人以非法手段，推翻中國根本制度或中央政權，遭控以煽動顛覆國家政權罪；鄒與另 4 名常委，則被控未有遵從《國安法實施細則》發出的通知， 7 名被告分兩案今日（ 10 日）在西九龍裁判法院提堂。法庭先處理涉及何俊仁等人的案件，暫定於 10 月 28 日再提訊；至於涉及 5 名常委的案件，控方原要求押後兩周被裁判官羅德泉拒絕， 5 人全部否認控罪，案件押後至下月 21 日作審前覆核，羅官拒絕所有被告保釋，全部還柙懲教署看管。 李卓人等 3 人涉煽動顛覆國家政權 首宗涉及 4 名被告：支聯會、支聯會主席李卓人（ 64 歲，工會幹事）   、副主席何俊仁（ 69 歲，律師）及鄒幸彤（ 36 歲，律師）。他們被控於 2020 年 7 月 1 日至 2021 年 9 月 8 日，在香港煽動他人組織、策劃、實施或者參與實施以非法手段，旨在顛覆國家政權的行為，即推翻、破壞中華人民共和國根本制度，或推翻中華人民共和國中央政權。 支聯會 7 董事全羈押無法委派律師 法庭先處理首宗案件，控方表示案中首被告，即支聯會未有代表出席今日聆訊，同為案中被告的鄒幸彤解釋，由於組織 7 名董事均在羈押當中，無法開會授權委派律師。控方亦表示明白案件較倉促，同意要先讓組織索取指示委派律師，羅官遂詢問鄒押後一個月是否足夠，鄒稱雖然開會可能出現「實際困難」，但同意先押後一個月，雙方經進一步討論後，決定將案件押後至 10 月 28 日。

Barrister James McGowan of Admiralty Chambers Admitted Misconduct in HKSAR v Apelete [2019] 5 HKLRD 574 [2019] HKCA 1189 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=125051&currpage=T 36. Before us, Mr McGowan candidly admitted that his actions (or lack thereof) were such as to bring him within the meaning of s.18 of the CCCO. In particular, he accepted that on his part there had been undue delay as well as a repeated failure to comply with the Court's directions, which amounted to serious professional misconduct.