M Ravi to issue letter of demand to Law Society

[makapaaa]

M Ravi to issue letter of demand to Law Society
By Claire Huang | Posted: 20 July 2012 1940 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 <INPUT id=btnPrev disabled value="<< Previous" src="/images/butt_previous.gif" width=18 height=15 type=image> <INPUT id=bntPlay value="Play - Stop" src="/images/butt_stop.gif" width=19 height=15 type=image> <INPUT id=btnNext disabled value=" Next >> " src="/images/butt_next.gif" width=18 height=15 type=image> <TBODY> </TBODY> Lawyer M Ravi (Photo: Channel NewsAsia)

<TBODY>
<TD>

<TBODY>
<TD vAlign=top width="100%">

<TBODY>
<TD>

Related News

• [TD="class: bodytext, width: 96%"]Top criminal lawyer criticises Law Society over M Ravi incident <TBODY> </TBODY> • [TD="class: bodytext, width: 96%"]Law Society says any suggestion of a conspiracy is untrue <TBODY> </TBODY> • [TD="class: bodytext, width: 96%"]"Red flag" over M Ravi's health raised by his doctor: Law Society <TBODY> </TBODY> <TBODY> </TBODY>

<TBODY>
</TBODY>

[/TD]

</TBODY>

[/TD]

</TBODY>

[/TD]

</TBODY>

<!-- for social media sharing functions -->

<fb:like class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" href="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1214750/1/.html" layout="button_count" font="arial" show_faces="false" ref=".UAp1l1iE3xs.like" action="recommend" width="120"><IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 130px; HEIGHT: 21px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" id=f1a2bd1de378f6b class=fb_ltr title="Like this content on Facebook." src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=recommend&api_key=101910072318&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D9%23cb%3Df64b337978c493%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%252Ff28f5abeee6841%26domain%3Dwww.channelnewsasia.com%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&font=arial&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%2Fstories%2Fsingaporelocalnews%2Fview%2F1214750%2F1%2F.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&node_type=1&ref=.UAp1l1iE3xs.like&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=130" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency name=f3496dd0c7ace2c scrolling=no></IFRAME></fb:like>	<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 115px; HEIGHT: 20px" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1340179658.html#_=1342862744913&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%2Fstories%2Fsingaporelocalnews%2Fview%2F1214750%2F1%2F.html&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%2Fstories%2Fsingaporelocalnews%2Fview%2F1214750%2F1%2F.html&size=m&text=M%20Ravi%20to%20issue%20letter%20of%20demand%20to%20Law%20Society%20-%20Channel%20NewsAsia%3A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%2Fstories%2Fsingaporelocalnews%2Fview%2F1214750%2F1%2F.html%23.UAp1l3s8twM.twitter" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>	inShare0​	[URL="http://www.sammyboy.com/#"]4[/URL]

<TBODY> </TBODY>

<!-- END social media sharing functions -->
SINGAPORE: Lawyer M Ravi on Friday said in a statement that he will be issuing a letter of demand to the Law Society of Singapore.

Channel NewsAsia understands that the letter is expected to be sent to Law Society next week.

The move follows the actions of a Law Society representative, Wong Siew Hong, who submitted a doctor's letter to the High Court on Monday. The doctor's letter stated that Mr Ravi is unfit to practise law.

Mr Ravi had turned up at the High Court to argue the Hougang by-election case on 16 July.

It was then that Mr Wong submitted the doctor's letter.

On Tuesday, the society issued a statement on the incident, saying that the representative, Mr Wong, had acted of his own, and he did so with the best of intentions.

- CNA/ck <!-- Zone Tag : Channel News Asia In Text <script type="text/javascript"> innity_pub = "66368270ffd51418ec58bd793f2d9b1b"; innity_zone = "12251"; innity_width = "**"; innity_height = "**"; innity_country = "SG"; </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://cdn.innity.com/network.js"></script>-->

 

[makapaaa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_letter

A demand letter, or LOD, i.e. a Letter Of Demand (of payment), is letter stating a legal claim (usually drafted by a lawyer) which makes a demand for restitution or performance of some obligation, owing to the recipients' alleged breach of contract, or for a legal wrong.

 

[myfoot123]

I am getting my pop corn ready for more news coming up from Sam Alfresco. Don't expect msm to report PAP shameless agenda.

 

[makapaaa]

What's wrong with you Mr Wong?

​

During the time that I was practising (and even thereafter), I had not come across any instance where a Law Society representive turned up in a court to raise the issue of the competency of a lawyer to carry on with the proceedings. As lawyers, we are hung up (more than anything else) on procedural rules. Being mindful of procedure is second nature to lawyers. It was, therefore, surprising to find out that Mr Wong Siew Hong (the head of the sub-committee for Member Care in the Law Society), turned up in court with a letter written by a medical professional. (The propriety of that disclosure by the medical professional is a separate issue and ought to be properly examined by the Singapore Medical Council. But, there might be justification based on a pre-existing direction for M Ravi to be examined by a medical professional in relation to his condition.)

What shocked me the most was the fact that whilst Mr Wong might be characterised as having had "good intentions" (as stated by the Law Society), it is unpardonable that after being rebuffed by Justice Pillai in the morning, he still proceeded to adopt the same method of interfering with proceedings in two other matters involving M Ravi's firm. It does not help that the 3 cases that he attempted to intervene in were political cases. Public perception of the Law Society is bound to get seriously damaged by these actions of Wong.

The three attempted interventions (based on reports that have surfaced so far):

a) The Hougang by-election case
b) The SDP illegal assembly case
c) The IMF loan judicial review case

Of course, it might have in all probability been a mere coincidence that on the day that Wong received information of M Ravi's condition, there were legal proceedings with political overtones going on. But, the problem is that as a matter of public perception, Wong's real intention doesn't matter. He should have addressed his mind to this and not acted hastily. Fine. He may have lapsed somewhat when he turned up before Justice Pillai. He might have sincerely felt that he was duty bound to alert the court of Ravi's condition so as to protect the interest of the litigant. But, after Justice Pillai had rightly pointed out that Ravi has a valid practising certificate and the Court would not enquire beyond that, Wong should have gotten back to the LS Council to take the proper procedural steps. Instead, Wong attempted (reportedly) on two further occasions to intervene in Ravi's court proceedings.

I am glad that the President of the Law Society has come forward to clarify that Wong acted on his own volition. At this stage I do not expect the Law Society to publicly chastise Wong. But, after thoroughly investigating this fiasco, the Law Society must in some way take Wong to task. The legal profession does not look very good when a Law Society representative goes on a frolic of his own to intervene in court proceedings without making any formal application. The fact that Wong did not cease in his intervention attempt despite a rebuff from Justice Pillai is unacceptable whichever way one might try to justify it as a case of 'good intentions'.

The Law Society itself got its facts wrong initially (which was itself somewhat comedic). But, I am willing to cut the Society some slack on that. But, some action is needed to drive home the point that Wong's repeated attempts at intervention in Ravi's proceedings is not the kind of conduct that the Law Society is willing to condone.
http://article14.blogspot.com.au/

 

[Bigfuck]

Perhaps Mr Wong is under a lot of duress in his personal life and career which may warrant a session with a psychologist and psychiatrist to ascertain if his judgment of affairs may have been unduly compromised as a concerned citizen of this country. Every man and woman on this Earth is fallible with the exception of God or the laws of Universe which those who may subscribe and choose to use as a yardstick to benchmark their journey to be less fallible. If indeed, it is shown that he was not of sufficiently clear faculty to make sound judgment in what is already declared by the Law Society as actions of good intention and there suddenly arises some evidence suggesting that Mr. Wong may not be well, it may good to put Mr Wong under psychiatric supervision for a period of time. However, if this proves to be the case, it may be necessary for the Law Society and the legal profession to subject all its practitioners to regular psychiatric and psychological review to ensure that the laws of Singapore are enforced to the best of its intention. This will ensure that perceptions within and without Singapore of the impartiality and high standards internationally are maintained with utmost endeavor.

 

[scroobal]

Actually succeeded in all 3.

He notified all 3 before the proceeding began. What the judges do is their business. The following have done what is expected of them

1. violet Netto
2. fones
3. Wong

Heard the blade out for KJ for what he had done. Sneaky bastard, hiding in his hole. Was it worth it to destroy a small time lawyer whose mind was impaired for your own ends.

Note except for the 2 blurfucks Richard and Andrew, no one in opposition has stepped forward. All the usual as well as the reliable critics are missing.