FAP Running Dog Society Fined M Ravi $7k for Fighting For Justice

[makapaaa]

[h=1]HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER M RAVI FINED $7,000 FOR MISCONDUCT[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
9 Jan 2015 - 11:31pm





<iframe src="http://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-1/html/container.html" style="display: none; visibility: hidden;"></iframe><ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


Human Rights lawyer M Ravi, who is well known for taking up the cases of high-profile activists, has been fined $7,000 for misconduct.

The Law Society of Singapore found that M Ravi had acted in a way which was considered misconduct and was “unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession”.

The fine was issued under the Legal Profession Act and was in relation to M Ravi having given confidential court documents to the media before he even gave them to the opposing party in the court cases.

The Law Society also explained that Mr Ravi had made statements to the Media about the ongoing court cases and his statements were “calculated to interfere with the fair proceedings or trial of the legal proceedings”.

This basically means that Mr Ravi had tried to influence the outcome of a court case by getting certain media coverage of it.



<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


This happened for a total of four cases all for clients who had brought proceedings against the Attorney-General.
One of the cases was a constitutional challenge to bad workplace discrimination of homosexuals.

Other cases included judicial review cases including cases involving the accused in the Little India Riot.

The Law Society felt that M Ravi’s actions were misconduct and they brought disciplinary proceedings against him.

 

[JohnTan]

M Ravi is a nutcase who shouldn't be practising law. The Law Society has already been too lenient on this nutcase. Not surprising, his clients consists of people who seem mentally unstable like Roy.

(24 July 2012 at 1pm: CORRECTION: M Ravi went to hospital to seek a second opinion on his condition. At this time, we are unable to confirm whether or not he was warded.

On Monday, Ravi's colleague Louis Joseph served a letter of demand on the Law Society of Singapore and lawyer Wong Siew Hong, seeking compensation for defamation and a public apology.

This after Wong appeared in court last week with a letter that stated Ravi was medically unfit to practise. The Law Society and Wong have been given seven days to respond.)

Human rights lawyer M Ravi danced, prayed, and made numerous accusations peppered with expletives during a two-hour “party” at Hong Lim Park on Sunday afternoon.

Heavily made-up, barefoot and wearing jeans with a black t-shirt as well as an ornate gold belt, scarves, and flower garlands, Mr Ravi danced three Indian traditional dances that involved him kneeling on the ground, lying prostrate on a small stage, and embracing a nearby tree.

At one point, the 43-year-old flung an orange flower garland into the air and attempted to slice it with a fake silver sword in front of an audience of about 30 people, made up mostly of several supporters, Bangladeshi workers and journalists.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/lawyer-m-ravi-in-bizarre-tirade-at-speaker’s-corner.html

[video=youtube;bzaHNfhxOpM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzaHNfhxOpM[/video]

 

[sense]

Lawyer M. Ravi fined $7,000 for professional misconduct

For “misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor,” human rights Lawyer M. Ravi was fined $7,000 by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore.


This penalty, which comes under the Legal Profession Act, was imposed as Mr Ravi had, in his capacity as the advocate and solicitor for several plaintiffs, “prematurely released various court documents relating to the legal proceedings before they were served on the opposing party”.


Mr Ravi was also charged for making statements to the media which were “calculated to interfere with the fair proceedings or trial of the legal proceedings”.


The incidents happened when Mr Ravi was representing Mr Wee Kim San in his case for constitutional protection against discriminations of homosexuals in the workplace, and during a judicial review against the deportation of a foreign worker who was involved in the Little India riot in December 2013.


A disciplinary tribunal, appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to look into possible misconduct, recommended the penalty.The tribunal comprised of Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon and lawyer Gina Lee-Wan.


Mr Ravi has pleaded guilty to all of the seven charges levied against him. The tribunal had recommended a $1,000 fine for each charge, for a total of $7,000. He was also ordered by the tribunal to pay to pay $3,000 in costs to the Law Society.