SINGAPORE — His client told him to start bankruptcy proceedings against another man, but veteran lawyer GB Vasudeven lied that he had already done so and forged court documents to offer proof.

On Wednesday (Aug 14), the solicitor of 25 years’ standing received the harshest penalty that can be meted out to legal practitioners for professional misconduct — being struck off the rolls.

The Court of Three Judges, which has the power to punish errant lawyers, ruled that Mr Vasudeven “acted in a strikingly dishonest manner” and “gravely violated the relationship between solicitor and client”.

Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, who heard the case with Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash and Justice Belinda Ang, told the court: “His egregious conduct warrants the most serious punishment available.” 

Mr Vasudeven, the sole director of Advaitha Law Corporation, will also have to pay S$7,600 in costs incurred by the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) for the proceedings.

His lawyer, Mr Christopher Anand Daniel, had told the judges that his client agreed with the LawSoc’s submission in seeking to have him struck off.

Last year, a disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Vasudeven should be dealt with over three charges of grossly improper conduct involving fraud, dishonesty and deception of a client.

However, the tribunal found no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action on two other charges. These charges involved lying to Mr Suresh Kumar R about the proceedings.

WHAT HAPPENED

Mr Suresh made a complaint to the LawSoc about Mr Vasudeven’s conduct in November 2016.

Mr Suresh was supposed to pay Dr Shanmuganathan Sinniah — Mr Vasudeven’s client — S$135,000 over an investment agreement.

When Mr Suresh failed to do so, Dr Shanmuganathan told Mr Vasudeven to begin bankruptcy proceedings against Mr Suresh.

Mr Suresh said that Mr Vasudeven lied that he had begun the proceedings, claiming they would be stayed if Mr Suresh paid Dr Shanmuganathan certain sums of money.

Between August and November 2016, Mr Suresh paid S$15,290 through a cash cheque and fund transfers to Mr Vasudeven’s personal bank account.

On Sept 14, 2016, Mr Suresh signed an affidavit concerning the investment agreement. Mr Vasudeven sent him a message by phone later that day, telling him to tell others that he had filed the affidavit five days before.

The disciplinary tribunal noted that this suggested Mr Suresh “was party to some form of deception”.

Then, the lawyer forged an affidavit dated Sept 9, 2016 to give Dr Shanmuganathan the impression that he began the bankruptcy proceedings three days earlier.

Mr Vasudeven admitted to doing so by extracting Mr Suresh’s signature, as well as the signatures and stamps of the Commissioner for Oaths, from the Sept 14 affidavit. He then changed the date and page number, before putting the signatures and stamps on the fake affidavit.

Later on Oct 4, he also created a fake requisition document dated Sept 21, 2016 and got Mr Suresh to sign it. He did so by extracting the Supreme Court’s electronic seal from another court document.

Mr Suresh said that he grew suspicious later in November. He then learnt that there were no proceedings against him and no payments had been made to the courts.

That was when he made a police report.

After he found out about Mr Vasudeven’s deception, Mr Suresh continued to communicate with the lawyer in his usual fashion and did not confront him. 

In coming to its decision, the tribunal described Mr Suresh’s behaviour as “unusual (for a person who had just found out he had been cheated)”. 

The tribunal also noted that Mr Suresh admitted to telling Mr Vasudeven that he would withdraw the complaint he made to the LawSoc, if the bankruptcy application was withdrawn or if Mr Vasudeven took over Mr Suresh’s debt.

There was thus a “distinct possibility” that Mr Suresh lodged the complaint to pressure Mr Vasudeven into assuming the debt, the tribunal said.