SINGAPORE — Disbarred lawyer M. Ravi has been ordered to return $120,000 which was paid to his former law firm by a group of clients who had engaged him to act for them.

The firm, K. K. Cheng Law, had handed over the money to Ravi after the clients paid the sum.

After Ravi was ordered to stop practising for failing to take his prescribed psychiatric medication, the clients successfully sued the firm for a refund.

In turn, the firm filed a civil action against Ravi for the return of the sum it had transferred to him.

In a judgement published on Aug 21, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun said Ravi should return the sum to the firm.

Judge Chiah found that an e-mail sent by Ravi to the firm, in which he said he will take responsibility and will indemnify the firm, constituted an indemnity he had given to the firm against the clients' claims.

The judge rejected Ravi's contention that his bipolar disorder had affected his mental capacity when he wrote the e-mail.

Aside from the indemnity, the judge found that Ravi must make restitution because he had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the firm.

Ravi, who has a history of disciplinary issues as a lawyer, was struck off the rolls in June.

He was sentenced on Aug 2 to 14 weeks' jail and fined $5,500 for a string of offences he committed between 2021 and 2023.

The events leading to the current case arose in 2021 while Ravi was practising under the name of the firm.

At the time, he was granted a conditional practising certificate by the Law Society of Singapore. This meant he could practise only under the supervision of another lawyer and was required to comply with his medication regimen.

In April 2021, Cheng Kim Kuan, the sole director of the firm, agreed to supervise Ravi.

In October 2021, Ravi secured a retainer to act for 11 individuals in a contentious matter involving $6.2 million.

The letter of engagement signed by the clients stipulated that Ravi was the sole lawyer handling the matter. The clients then paid $120,000 to the firm as part-payment of the total fees of $240,000 agreed between them and Ravi.

On Nov 16, 2021, the firm transferred the money to Ravi.

On Dec 2, Ravi was ordered to stop practising for failing to comply with his medication regimen. Two days later, the clients discharged Ravi and demanded a refund.

The clients hired another law firm, Legal Standard, which sent a letter of demand on Dec 30.

Cheng attached the letter in an e-mail to Ravi on Jan 1, 2022, and asked for a response.

Ravi's reply on the same day contained the operative words: "I take personal and professional responsibility for all files handled by me and will indemnify the firm accordingly if anything but none so far to date."

The clients then took the claim to the High Court, and the firm was ordered on Feb 27, 2023, to refund the sum.

Faced with a demand for payment, the firm wrote to Ravi and asked that he forward the money to Legal Standard, citing his earlier e-mail, but he did not respond.

On May 16, 2023, K. K. Cheng Law filed the current application against Ravi.

The firm, represented by Ong Ying Ping, argued that Ravi's e-mail constituted an indemnity, and hence, he should return the sum to the firm.

The firm also argued that Ravi had been unjustly enriched at its expense by not repaying the sum.

Ravi, who was represented by Joseph Chen, disagreed that his e-mail should be construed as an indemnity.

He further argued that any indemnity would be invalidated by his lack of mental capacity at the time.

In his judgement, Judge Chiah said that in construing the operative words in their proper context, it was plain that the objective intention of the parties was that Ravi would indemnify the firm in the event that it paid out $120,000 to the clients.

The judge noted that although Cheng was the supervising lawyer, in reality, he did not review Ravi's work; the latter worked out of a separate office he rented for himself and hired his own staff.

Cheng has served a six-month suspension for failing to supervise Ravi.

Judge Chiah highlighted that Ravi's e-mail was written to Cheng in direct and immediate response to the clients' letter of demand.

The judge added that it was known that the firm played no part in Ravi's handling of the clients' case, and did not seek a share of the legal fees arising from the retainer.

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