Lawyer suspended for mishandling 'relatively straightforward' case that dragged for 3 years

SINGAPORE - A lawyer was handed a nine-month suspension on Wednesday (May 10) by the Court of Three Judges for his mishandling of a case that resulted in his client going through more litigation and incurring more costs than necessary.

Mr Andrew Hanam was found guilty of professional misconduct ranging from acting without his client’s instructions or consent, to failures to render legal advice, as well as failures to discuss alternative dispute resolution options.

He had represented P&P Engineering and Construction in a dispute with Kori Construction involving unpaid invoices arising from two subcontracts for the construction of Marina Bay MRT station.

Under Mr Hanam’s handling, the dispute – described by the court as “relatively straightforward” – spawned three separate lawsuits that went on for close to three years.

Numerous applications were filed in the course of the legal proceedings, and P&P ended up being ordered to pay costs to Kori.

The reasons for the various costs orders “speak to demonstrable failures on Mr Hanam’s part to properly evaluate and/or render legal advice to P&P”, said the court.

In its judgment on Wednesday, the court said: “While the missteps of Mr Hanam may appear to be no more than periodic episodes of innocent bungling to P&P’s detriment, they are nevertheless cumulative failures – that is, the grounds of misconduct – that were sustained and prolonged over a period of close to three years.”

In determining the suspension period, the court took into account aggravating factors including Mr Hanam’s lack of remorse and the harm caused to his client.

However, the court noted that he did not intentionally or wilfully mishandle the three suits with a view to harm his client.

The suspension will start in four weeks’ time.

The Law Society had brought misconduct charges against Mr Hanam following a complaint lodged by Mr Krishnamoorthy Pugazendhi, the sole director and shareholder of P&P, in March 2020.

Mr Pugazendhi had appointed Mr Hanam in November 2016 to represent his company to recover nearly $1.5 million that was owed by Kori in relation to two subcontracts, one for the provision of manpower and the other for the supply of steel fabrication works.

He told Mr Pugazendhi that P&P would start a court action for the November 2016 invoices first, and that the claim for the December 2016 invoices would be filed after they became due and payable. Thus, this led to two separate High Court suits.

The first suit was filed on Nov 25, 2016, for a claim of $376,344.93 under the manpower subcontract and $893,273.66 under the steel fabrication subcontract.

On the first day of trial in October 2017, a settlement agreement was reached on the manpower claim, but the trial continued in respect of the steel fabrication claim.

Under the settlement agreement, Kori was to pay P&P a sum of $236,187.75.

Because Mr Hanam had not negotiated for the timeframe for payment, Kori took the position that the sum was payable only at the conclusion of the first suit.

The second suit was filed on Dec 11, 2017, seeking $342,821.05, which was based on a compromise of the amount owing for the manpower subcontract under the December 2016 invoices.

Meanwhile, P&P filed several applications, including one seeking judgment based on the settlement agreement for the first suit. It was dismissed with P&P ordered to pay $3,700 in costs on April 9, 2018.

On the same day, Mr Hanam advised Mr Pugazendhi to file a new action against Kori in respect of the settlement. A district court suit for payment of the settlement sum was then filed.

ALSO READ: PAP to determine course of action after MP Christopher de Souza’s appeal in professional misconduct case

A disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Hanam had breached professional conduct rules on 14 counts. However, the court set aside six of the 14 counts after concluding that the Law Society’s case was not established beyond a reasonable doubt on these instances. The court upheld the other eight counts.

The court faulted Mr Hanam for his failure to discuss the option of having the dispute resolved under the adjudication regime of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, which offers an affordable and speedy resolution process for construction disputes.

The court also found that he failed to advise P&P on the option of waiting for the first High Court suit to be resolved before obtaining the settlement sum, instead of recommending that the client start a fresh court action for the sum.

This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.