Law Society says any suggestion of a conspiracy is untrue

SINGAPORE: The Law Society of Singapore said any suggestion of a conspiracy involving the society is untrue and irresponsible.

It added that it discharged its duties properly.

It was referring to the events on 16 July, in which Mr M Ravi turned up to argue the Hougang by—election case at the High Court.

In a statement, the Law Society said Mr Wong Siew Hong, who was the lawyer assigned by the Law Society to liaise with Mr Ravi and Dr Calvin Fones, learnt from Dr Fones regarding Mr Ravi’s medical condition on Sunday.

Based on this, Mr Wong decided to go to Court on Monday.

The Law Society said although Mr Wong had acted very much on his own, he did so with the best of intentions.

The Law Society added that a member of its secretariat decided to go down to the Court to observe the proceedings at his own initiative.

This staff member has no right of audience before the Courts and there is no basis to suggest that he was there to make an application to prevent Mr Ravi from arguing his case.

The statement also said its Practice Committee will review Dr Fones’ letter.

President of the Law Society, Senior Counsel Wong Meng Meng, said the committee will send its recommendations to the society’s council, whilst its council intends to speak to both Mr Ravi and Dr Fones.

Mr Ravi was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2006.

The Law Society said it was informed of Mr Ravi’s medical condition four years ago and its council obtained Mr Ravi’s permission to speak with his doctor, Dr Fones.

At this meeting, Dr Fones advised that Mr Ravi was fit to practise, but he had to take his medication regularly, and be properly supervised.

As a result, the Law Society approved Mr Ravi’s application for a Practising Certificate from 2009 to 2012, subject to certain conditions.

For 2009, the condition was that Mr Ravi would practise under the supervision of Ms Violet Netto.

For 2010, the condition was relaxed to allow him to practise in partnership with Ms Netto.

For both 2009 and 2010, Mr Ravi was required to furnish reports from Dr Fones every three months.

For 2011, the condition that he be supervised by Ms Netto was re—imposed. The condition that he furnished a medical report was now at two—monthly intervals.

There was an additional condition that he had to take his medication.

For 2012, the condition that he be supervised was removed, and he was allowed to practise in partnership with Ms Netto.

In respect of the furnishing of medical reports, this was relaxed to four—monthly reporting.

The Law Society said Mr Ravi accepted the conditions.

— CNA/ck