2013年8月18日 星期日

梅國強大律師 (Barrister Louie Mui) 包攬訴訟囚3年半

梅國強大律師 (Barrister Louie Mui) 包攬訴訟囚3年半

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130326/-32-2928093/1.html

2013年3月26日 - 星島日報: -

曾遭大律師公會停牌半年的大律師梅國強 (Counsel Louie Mui) 涉嫌五度包攬訴訟,早前被裁定5項包攬訴訟罪罪名成立,今日下午在區域法院被判處入獄3年半。法官判刑時表示,被告違反專業,利用客戶不熟悉索償法律程序,違反對他們的誠信,案情嚴重,必須判監。法官同時下令,被告須向5宗索償案件的客戶,賠償他瓜分了的大部分款項。52歲的大律師梅國強涉嫌於99年至08年期間,五度在民事索償案中,主動要求與申索人攤分勝訴賠償,在沒有事務律師在場下給予法律意見,承諾「不成功不收費」,更「吃兩家茶禮」,同時接受申索人及事務律師行支付的律師費,收受利益總額超過170萬。


Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16004076&page=1

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1200505/history-made-barrister-louie-mui-jailed-illegal-deals-clients

History made as Barrister Louie Mui is jailed for illegal deals with clients
 
A barrister (Lawyer and Counsel Louie Mui - 梅國強大律師) was sentenced to 3½ years' jail yesterday for what a judge said were "obnoxious" deals to buy into his clients' lawsuits and gain more than HK$1.6 million from their damages payments.

Louie Mui Kwok-keung, 53, made Hong Kong history by becoming the first barrister convicted of the archaic common-law offence known as champerty - the act of one striking an illegal deal with a party in a lawsuit to obtain a share of its proceeds.

The five offences took place between 1999 and 2008, when he persuaded five clients to pay him 25 to 30 per cent of the damages they would receive if they won their claims, or had their cases settled out of court.

District Court Judge Amanda Woodcock said in her ruling: "As a barrister, the defendant's conduct posed a genuine risk to court process." She said that his act amounted to "exploitation" of the laymen involved who had no legal knowledge.

"They paid what they thought was the legal fee," she said.

Woodcock ordered Mui to repay a total of HK$1.5 million to four of his clients by August, saying she was sure that they were not aware of the illegality of the agreements.

She said that the agreements were "pure champerty" and "in a more obnoxious form", because Mui had skirted stated procedures and initially dealt directly with all the five clients without involving a solicitor.

2013年8月17日 星期六

鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 被法官狠批「做法不專業,損人不利己」

鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 被法官狠批「做法不專業,損人不利己」

香港特別行政區 訴 袁郁鈞 (Reported in: [2007] 1 HKLRD 819) HCMA730/2006 (裁判日期:2007年1月23日)

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=55815&QS=%2B&TP=JU

「上訴人的大律師鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 本身對刑事審訊接納證據的基本法則一知半解,胡亂指控聆訊時代表上訴人的大律師不稱職,不切實際地提昇上訴人對成功上訴的期望、做法不專業,損人不利己,絕對不值得鼓勵或仿效。」 - 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦


Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=15432730

2013年8月10日 星期六

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

胡漢清資深大律師 - Hong Kong Barrister Alan Hoo SC and His Mum (Part IV)

Source: http://hk.next.nextmedia.com/index.php/article/1203/16879502

2013年3月28日 (壹週刊) 第1203期 (探熱針): -

資深大律師胡漢清 (Barrister and Senior Counsel Alan Hoo SC) 母子不和事件,日前胡漢清公開向母親認錯,更直認資金周轉有困難。

公開認錯

爆出胡漢清母子不和事件後,不斷被傳媒追訪的胡母,身心俱疲,目前足不出戶,留在朋友家中靜養。

家事公開,連日胡漢清均未有公開露面,日前他透過雜誌,公開向母親認錯,後悔沒有顧及老人家的感受,承認因為要照顧三頭住家,包括母親、前妻余慧敏和一對子女,以及現任太太江希文,每月支出極大,加上英國物業需要重建而向銀行借貸二千萬,導致資金周轉有困難,但仍希望盡力解決母親的需要。

本刊日前致電胡漢清,對方稱不在,稍後由一名李姓男子代覆說:「現正冷靜處理事情,不適宜作公開回應。」

對於兒子求和好,莊永楚態度保留,而上週四母子和頭飯局後,記者貼身追訪她數天也未見胡漢清主動聯絡過母親,至於莊永楚有否主動聯絡兒子?她說:「我打電話,佢都唔肯聽!咁多日,佢都冇搵過我!」母子關係膠着。

胡漢清資深大律師 - Hong Kong Barrister Alan Hoo SC and His Mum (Part III)

胡漢清資深大律師 - Hong Kong Barrister Alan Hoo SC and His Mum (Part III)

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/entertainment/art/20130401/18213227
2013年4月1日 – 蘋果日報 (Apple Daily, 1st April 2013):

揚言被屈 江希文數家姑

江希文下嫁資深大律師胡漢清 (Barrister and Senior Counsel Alan Hoo SC) 不久,胡漢清即與84歲母親莊永楚發生金錢糾紛,上月21日胡老太在好友白韻琴陪同下開記招,哭訴胡漢清侵佔其2,000萬家產。

事件沉寂多天,江希文昨日凌晨突然連發13條微博講解事件。身在外地的白韻琴對江希文發微博「申冤」頗為不屑,她昨日在電話中說:「叫佢做新抱嘅收吓嗲,講少幾句好過講多幾句,遲早後悔鬧家婆,佢話家婆為錢返港,有乜出奇!佢係返嚟攞番自己嘅嘢,亦都冇冤枉佢,清白嘅毋須申冤。」

Alan Hoo SC (胡漢清資深大律師) And His Mum (Part II)

Alan Hoo SC (胡漢清資深大律師), a Hong Kong Barrister, Accused of Eviction - By His Own Mother

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1196611/top-barrister-accused-his-mum

I've been locked out and can't get my money back, says mother of Basic Law Institute Head.
 
The elderly mother of Alan Hoo SC, a Hong Kong Barrister, accused her only son of locking her out of their home in Pok Fu Lam and refusing to take her phone calls for the past six months.

Linda Chuan Yun-chuu, 84, also claimed her son, Alan Hoo SC, a Hong Kong Barrister, had thrown her out of a home she owns in Shanghai and refused to return HK$11 million in cash.

Chuan said she believed Hoo was upset after she refused to attend his third wedding because his second divorce had cost her a lot of money.

Hoo, a senior counsel, chairman of the Basic Law Institute and a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate, could not be reached by the South China Morning Post at his office yesterday.

Alan Hoo says he loves his mother very much.

According to a statement he was reported to have sent to some of the city's media, he denied the accusations and stressed he loved his mother very much.

Chuan told a press conference how a lawyer had turned up at her Shanghai home in October claiming her son had sent him.

He told her that she had to move out by the end of November because the property was to be rented out.

"I was also told that my son had changed the lock of our home on Sassoon Road in Hong Kong and asked me not to return to Sassoon Road," Chuan said.

"I told the lawyer I would wait for my son in the doorway, but the lawyer said he would pay for a hotel for me to stay in for one week." Since then, she has been staying with a nephew and niece.

She said Hoo refused to take her calls or to see her. "As soon as he hears my voice, he hangs up the phone," she said. "When I call his office, his secretary simply asks me to leave a message."

Chuan, who was accompanied by district councillor and friend Pamela Peck Wan-kam and Peck's partner Paul Tse Wai-chun, a legislator, said she wanted her son to return all her assets.

Catering-sector lawmaker Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, a friend of Hoo's, said he got a phone call from Hoo a couple of hours before Chuan's press conference.

Cheung said Hoo wanted him to pass a message to his mother and the media that he was willing to discuss the matter with her face to face and would try to meet any requests. He said Hoo was handling a legal dispute and so was unable to attend the press conference.

One of Hoo's close friends told the Post that Hoo and Chuan had been due to meet on Tuesday but she cancelled the appointment because of stormy weather. The friend said the mother and son might meet as early as last night.

Hoo, whose first wife was socialite Flora Cheong-Leen, married his third wife, former actress Liz Kong, last year.

Alan Hoo SC (胡漢清資深大律師) And His Mum (Part I)

胡漢清母子為房產爭拗 (Alan Hoo SC, a Hong Kong Barrister, alleged to have argued with his mum over some apartments)

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130321/-2-2924000/1.html

(星島日報報道)

資深大律師兼全國政協委員胡漢清,被八十四歲的莊永楚母親指控霸佔其資產,包括千萬現金以及現值二千萬人民幣的上海豪宅。莊永楚接受本報訪問時表示,自去年十月五日(即胡的生日)後,兒子已沒有與她說話,她去年十一月更被趕離上海大宅,當時她手上有三十粒安眠藥,傷心欲絕打算自殺。但胡漢清昨日發出聲言,強調自己愛錫母親,各地物業仍任母親進出自如,還稱母親是個「老頑皮」,經常「玩失蹤」。但胡母反斥︰「全部講大話!」

莊永楚昨日接受本報電話訪問時稱,自己遺囑已表明所有財產會留給胡漢清,自己極信任兒子,名下資產也交由兒子保管,「但他個人變晒。」莊指胡去年十月五日生日時,宣布第三次結婚,「他第一、二次結婚、離婚時,使了我好多錢,我已話過第三次結婚時,唔好搞我。」胡漢清當時向母索取結婚禮物,但莊稱大粒的鑽石已用完,「不知是否因為咁嬲了我。」胡就改為索取他給母親六十歲生日的禮物──鑲鑽粉盒作結婚賀禮。

莊表示,自己因為要坐輪椅,欲把加拿大的複式物業換成一層公寓樓花,總額為一百一十三萬加元(約八百五十四萬港元)。頭兩期共十一萬加元的首期她已繳清,還剩下第三期,共五萬六千五百元的首期,她未能支付,遂向胡取回名下財產。莊稱自己在九七年移民時,出售了麥當勞道物業,共一千一百五十萬現金寄存在兒子那裏,但胡向她表示該款已全數蝕掉。她想變賣上海現市值二千萬元的物業套現,但胡卻稱物業已做信託,不能變賣。她搬回上海小住,卻收到胡委託的上海律師通知,說物業已出租,要她搬走。胡又禁止她進入沙宣道的胡家大宅。

莊稱,這半年間,胡跟她一句說話也沒有說過。她在胡首次結婚時,給了他一百萬元舉行婚禮,胡之後每月給母親二萬二千元當利息收入,也是零用錢。但兩母子齟齬後,胡曾威脅只要母親向傳媒說一句話,就不會再發零用。莊稱自己仍未知道兒子是否真的停發零用,「可能他已cut了,我未看到銀行單」。

但胡漢清發聲明反駁,指昨天周刊報道他和家人的內容「有不盡不實之處」。他指自己一向十分愛錫母親,廿多年來一直照顧她生活所需,尤其近年均越洋給她找醫生,對她悉心照料;而在加拿大、上海的物業,均為供母親專用,她也一直穿梭往返香港、上海、溫哥華三地居住,各地物業向來進出自如,迄今無變。胡又指,母親最近在朋友游說下,以最高峰價在溫哥華買下一個豪華複式頂樓物業,又保留現有居所,涉及大量現金周轉,他需多些時間處理有關事宜。而他更直指母親是個「老頑皮」,經常給他「玩失蹤」,一直和他玩捉迷藏,她近日在港期間,到一些傳媒朋友家中暫住,他更衷心感謝朋友於母親在港期間的照顧。

不過,胡母聽到胡的聲明後,怒斥「他全部講大話」,強調自己沒有花過他一分一毫,她移民至加拿大時,樓與房車也是她自己購買,在四、五年前她的座駕在雪地打轉,她要求兒子用她的存款改買一部,胡也只叫她換了四條輪胎就算。而且她在上海樓物被趕走,沙宣道大宅的門鎖更全換掉,遑論進出自如。

鍾嘉欣 (Actress Linda Chung) 誤做第三者:我唔知喎!

Source: http://hk.next.nextmedia.com/article/1111/15364826

2011年6月23日 (壹週刊) 第1111期 (探熱針): -

鍾嘉欣 (Actress Linda Chung) 誤做第三者:我唔知喎!

在《點解阿 Sir係阿 Sir》飾演 Miss Koo的鍾嘉欣,慘遇情場騙子陳豪,哭崩全城。現實生活中,鍾嘉欣亦被本刊踢爆與在加拿大讀書時的舊同學李傲寰大律師 (Barrister Felix Li) 秘密拍拖。

不過,鍾嘉欣的大律師男友 Felix,原來有個拍拖多年,同是大律師的親密女友梁凱思大律師 (Barrister Joyce Leung)。本週一(六月二十日),記者將 Felix一腳踏兩船一事告知鍾嘉欣,她恍然大悟說:「我……唔知喎!」矇查查做了第三者,鍾嘉欣戲如人生。

向女友自首

上月十日,趁新劇《學府藏龍》未開工,同奀星男友伍允龍暗拍亦暗散的鍾嘉欣,戴帽戴眼鏡,一身樸素打扮,與新歡 Felix到情侶拍拖勝地赤柱撐枱腳。  其間因為發現有記者,二人飯都唔食,坐番上車劈住走。

背女友偷嗒鍾嘉欣東窗事發,但 Counsel Felix Li 繼續瞞住鍾嘉欣,同時向正印女友 Counsel Joyce Leung 自首,訛稱當晚相約鍾嘉欣純粹是傾談借 band房事宜,不過報導出街,正印依然火遮眼。

唔知有正印

本週一下午,鍾嘉欣在電視城拍攝新劇《學府藏龍》,提到 Felix 其實早有一要好女友,她表現得一臉茫然。

壹:依家同 Felix發展成點?
鍾:朋友囉!
壹:感情有冇更進一步發展?
鍾:感情事唔講。
壹:你知唔知 Felix有女朋友?
鍾:(愕一愕)……唔知喎!
壹:上次你哋赤柱拍拖報導出街,佢哋吵到要分手喎!
鍾:我唔知呢啲事。
壹:驚唔驚俾人話你係第三者?
鍾:人哋想點寫就點寫,支筆喺記者度,私事一向低調,唔會影響我工作。我同佢係好(講完好字發覺唔對路,即停)……係朋友咁簡單。

有份家庭樂

東窗事發後, Felix除了返工便是與男性友人食飯飲嘢,並無異常。早前週末,記者發現 Felix與女友及媽咪 Barrister Jennifer Tsui 三人一齊離開銅鑼灣莊苑寓所,兩女一男夾手夾腳把一袋二袋行李,搬上 Felix的黑色日產座駕上,其間,紮住馬尾,鼓埋泡腮的 Joyce甚少跟 Felix交談,反而與其母有講有笑,明顯熟落。

之後,由 Felix揸車,一車人過海到九龍塘。 Family day都預埋正印 Joyce,可見二人關係密切;被蒙在鼓裡的鍾嘉欣,醒吓啦!

男友偷食純情鍾嘉欣,現場所見 Barrister Joyce Leung 樣貌一般,確實唔夠「第三者」鍾嘉欣省鏡。

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

馬官批評辯方大律師鍾建康 - Magistrate Mr Wahab Criticises Defence Counsel Mr K H Chung

【明報專訊】 (2013年2月21日)

塌樓慘劇審訊原定審20天,結果花了28天才審結。裁判官馬保華 (Magistrate Mr Abu Bakar bin Wahab) 昨裁決時,斥責控辯雙方延誤審訊,認為「案件押後又押後,與辯方律師的做法很有關係」。

馬官先斥責控方大律師謝志浩 (Barrister C H Tse),指他未了解控方專家證人作供需時多久,案件預審時卻不反對將審訊期定為20天。馬官之後批評辯方大律師鍾建康 (Barrister K H Chung),指他盤問證人遲遲不達重點,質疑他表達能力大有問題,拖長審訊、浪費法庭時間,一度要求被告更換律師或加律師。

馬官舉例說,本案被告是朱偉榮,但辯方盤問屋宇署測量師作供時,花了很長時間問屋宇署處事態度,及指屋宇署做錯事,實在不明所以。

此外,辯方所傳召的專家證人的報告,最後又不接納為呈堂證供,馬保華對辯方處理專家證人證供手法「深感遺憾」。

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130221/-3-2900056/1.html)

Soler 單官司 Soler 輸晒 - 欠債600萬 被判破產

Soler 單官司 Soler 輸晒 - 欠債600萬 被判破產

樂壇孖仔組合Soler與蜂鳥音樂因合約糾紛而被索償近600萬,由於長期拖欠賠償,昨日高院正式向他們頒令破產,蜂鳥老闆張丹更鬧爆「潛水」的兩子是「縮頭鴕鳥」,誓要追債追到天腳底!

CACV 40/2009 HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LIMITED v DINO ACCONCI & GIULIO ACCONCI

CA's Judgment: -

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=69194&QS=%28%7BDINO%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU

Hon Rogers VP:

1. This was an appeal from a judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Carlson given on 22 January 2009.

2. The judge held in the plaintiff’s favour. He awarded damages of $5,058,000 and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim. At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal judgment was reserved which we now give.

30. In summary, the arguments raised on behalf of the defendants in respect of restraint of trade have no merit.
33. In my view this appeal falls to be dismissed. I would make an order nisi of costs in favour of the plaintiff.

Mr CY Li & Mr Kenneth Chung, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr Ambrose Ho SC & Ms Joyce Leung, instructed by Messrs Haldanes, for the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Appellants

(Source: http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=21411682)

資深大律師清洪指裁判官黃汝榮 (Magistrate Symon Wong) 與女生有染

法 官 被 指 與 女 生 有 染
( 星 島 日 報 報 道 ) 裁 判 官 黃 汝 榮 昨 在 一 宗 「 師 爺 」 被 控 意 圖 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 案 , 以 控 方 證 人 身 分 作 供 時 , 受 到 辯 方 不 斷 揭 露 他 未 做 法 官 前 的 私 生 活 , 包 括 當 年 任 職 大 律 師 時 與 被 告 打 麻 雀 及 同 赴 澳 門 夜 總 會 , 又 在 大 學 教 書 期 間 和 女 學 生 發 生 關 係 。
律 師 行 文 員 涉 嫌 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 案 中 , 二 十 九 歲 被 告 「 師 爺 」 郭 永 業 , 被 控 一 項 意 圖 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 罪 名 受 審 。 控 方 證 人 兼 當 日 主 審 有 關 案 件 的 裁 判 官 黃 汝 榮 , 昨 日 供 述 被 告 約 他 午 膳 , 企 圖 為 當 時 正 由 他 審 理 的 區 議 會 選 舉 「 種 票 」 案 女 被 告 李 佩 英 說 情 。
現 年 四 十 七 歲 的 黃 汝 榮 , 去 年 二 月 二 十 六 日 獲 委 任 為 裁 判 官 , 案 發 時 是 西 區 裁 判 官 , 現 任 小 額 錢 債 審 裁 官 。 他 昨 日 接 受 控 方 引 導 作 供 時 僅 耗 用 四 十 分 鐘 , 但 被 辯 方 資 深 大 律 師 清 洪 盤 問 了 近 四 小 時 , 經 常 問 非 所 答 , 需 要 主 審 女 法 官 重 複 問 題 。
他 承 認 早 於 一 九 九 五 年 和 資 深 大 律 師 駱 應 淦 受 聘 於 鄧 耀 榮 律 師 行 , 替 一 毒 販 打 輸 官 司 , 當 時 法 官 下 令 充 公 毒 販 資 產 , 結 果 他 無 法 收 取 應 得 之 律 師 費 。 他 乃 於 二 ○ ○ ○ 年 三 月 正 式 向 律 師 會 投 訴 , 要 求 索 回 該 筆 欠 付 的 約 五 十 萬 元 律 師 費 。
黃 汝 榮 亦 承 認 與 被 告 午 飯 時 , 曾 透 露 自 己 曾 花 三 分 一 資 產 投 資 股 票 , 而 致 損 手 爛 腳 , 尤 其 買 重 中 國 移 動 (941) 。 他 在 席 間 更 埋 怨 因 美 國 「 九 一 一 」 事 件 , 再 令 股 票 大 跌 。
不 過 , 他 在 庭 上 否 認 因 投 資 失 利 , 而 決 定 追 討 多 年 前 的 律 師 費 用 。 他 承 認 在 本 年 六 月 撤 回 該 投 訴 , 原 因 是 連 較 他 資 深 的 駱 應 淦 亦 是 「 白 做 」 , 都 沒 有 追 究 。
但 辯 方 大 律 師 清 洪 則 在 庭 上 指 黃 當 日 是 主 動 約 被 告 午 飯 , 目 的 是 要 被 告 替 他 做 一 份 誓 章 , 內 容 指 明 他 當 年 絕 非 以 贏 官 司 才 能 收 款 的 方 法 來 計 算 律 師 費 ﹔ 但 被 告 拒 絕 這 樣 做 , 被 告 更 指 不 要 將 其 擺 上 台 。 但 黃 不 同 意 上 述 指 控 。
黃 汝 榮 表 示 , 在 一 九 九 四 年 因 工 作 關 係 , 認 識 當 時 在 鄧 耀 榮 律 師 行 工 作 的 被 告 ﹔ 於 執 業 大 律 師 期 間 , 主 要 的 收 入 來 自 被 告 任 職 律 師 行 聘 用 他 打 官 司 。 他 曾 與 被 告 打 麻 雀 , 兩 人 又 因 公 事 到 澳 門 的 新 花 城 夜 總 會 消 遣 。 但 他 否 認 到 夜 總 會 叫 四 名 小 姐 相 伴 及 往 按 摩 場 所 。
辯 方 大 律 師 更 指 黃 在 大 學 擔 任 講 師 時 , 和 一 女 學 生 有 關 係 , 一 度 恐 怕 女 方 報 警 , 但 法 官 反 對 此 提 問 , 結 果 黃 毋 須 回 答 。
案 件 編 號 ﹕ 區 域 法 院 三 三 一 — — 二 ○ ○ 二 。

(Source: http://www.singtao.com/archive/fullstory.asp?andor=or&year1=2002&month1=10&day1=31&year2=2002&month2=10&day2=31&category=all&id=20021031a08&keyword1=&keyword2)

Barrister Kevin Poon of Counsel in HCMP 1739 / 2012 (a Public Judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal)

Barrister Kevin Poon of Counsel in HCMP 1739 / 2012 (a Public Judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal)


http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=83731&currpage=T

"The 1st defendant has attached to its summons a draft Notice of Appeal with 28 grounds settled by Mr Kevin Poon who was also the trial counsel. These grounds are prolix, repetitive and I do not find them helpful...

The 1st defendant has not met the threshold onus for leave to appeal to be granted, so this application must be dismissed.

As the application is entirely without merit, I would make a further order pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) that no party may under rule 2A(7) request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes"

(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=15404363)

Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)

Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86263&QS=%2B&TP=JU

HCMA 357/2012
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court
Dates of Hearing and Decision: 21 February and 6 March 2013
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 8 March 2013
_______________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
_______________________

4. Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel appeared for the applicant as his lawyer at trial and again on the appeal. He then made application for a certificate for leave to refer a total of 14 questions, 13 in regard to conviction and one in regard to sentence, to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, asserting that each of those questions constitutes "... a point of law of great and general importance... involved in the decision..." on appeal.

5. This application was listed for a 30 minute hearing on 21 February 2013 at 09.30. When it did commence, belatedly, counsel sought to hand in a bundle of authorities which had not previously been served on the respondent or filed in court. A jury trial had been set to resume at 10.00 that morning. It was perfectly plain, despite counsel’s expressed belief to the contrary that it would finish in time, that the matter would not permit of the timeous resumption of the jury trial. It was accordingly adjourned to today with an order that any submissions and authorities be filed and served on or before 1 March.

10. None of the questions was a question of law; none was of great importance; none was of general importance; more particularly none was of great and general importance.

11. The application was consequently dismissed.

12.Presenting entirely unmeritorious appeals or applications in this fashion is unacceptable. It does nothing to further the interests of an accused person; the interests of justice; the interests of the courts; the interests of the community as a whole. That these proceedings have been funded by the general public via either the Duty Lawyer Scheme at trial or the Department of Legal Aid in respect of the appeal and of this application is a matter for real concern. I direct that a copy of this decision be referred to the Director of Legal Aid.
(A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge

Ms WONG Kam Hing, SADPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel and Lawyer, instructed by Department of Legal Aid, for the Appellant

(Source: http://barbrarab.blogspot.hk/2013/06/mark-sutherland.html)

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) Convicted and Fined HK$4,000 in Western Magistrates' Court on June 3, 1999

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) Convicted and Fined HK$4,000 in Western Magistrates' Court on June 3, 1999
Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/286231/convicted-lawyer-faces-bar-inquiry

(South China Morning Post, June 25th, 1999, Alison Smith)

Convicted Lawyer Faces Bar Inquiry

Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) has stepped down from the Bar Council pending an investigation that could lead to disciplinary proceedings.

Russell Coleman, 36, is under investigation by an independent tribunal after he failed to tell the Bar Association's executive committee of his conviction this month for a criminal offence.

Association Chairman Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC said yesterday he was 'a little upset' after learning of the barrister's conviction by reading about it in the South China Morning Post.

'He told me he was naturally a little embarrassed to reveal the matter to me . . . He thought the conviction wouldn't attract media attention,' Mr Tong said.

Mr Coleman is among nine elected members of the Bar Council - the body appointed to uphold standards of professional conduct and discipline among barristers.

He confirmed last night that he had not offered to resign but had agreed to step down while the investigation takes place.

'As you know, I have agreed pending the usual processes, not to take part in Bar Council and subcommittee deliberations,' he said.

Senior Counsel Ronny Tong SC said Russell Coleman only offered to step down after he broached the matter outside the last meeting of the executive committee.

'I learned on the morning of the Friday and I was a little bit unprepared. When it was revealed in the SCMP, the name was Langley Coleman and I was frantically trying to get hold of him to find out what the position was,' he said. 'I think he quite naively thought the matter wouldn't attract attention.' Mr Coleman was fined $4,000 in Western Court on June 3 for helping his domestic helper work as a caretaker - an offence under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Immigration Ordinance.

The name on the charge sheet was Langley Coleman, Russell Adam. Mr Coleman is known professionally as Russell Coleman but he said Langley was in the full name on his identity card.

Under association rules, barristers convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty or 'which may bring the profession into disrepute' must report the conviction to the Bar Council.

There have been 12 complaints against barristers lodged so far this year and of those, three were referred to the tribunal - an independent panel of three people who investigate and act as prosecutors if necessary.

(Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/06/lawyer-counsel-barrister-russell-coleman.html)

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) Found to Have Deceived the University of Hong Kong

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) Found to Have Deceived the University of Hong Kong
Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university

(South China Morning Post, February 12, 2000, Cliff Buddle)

Barrister Barred for Deceiving University

Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

He could not be contacted for comment.
_______________________________________________________________________

Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835

(蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日之報導)

前大狀以堂費扣稅敗訴

曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈,早年申請研究生獎學金時,虛報有一級榮譽學士學位,兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾,被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守,被停牌半年,兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費,他指已付堂費可扣稅,獲稅務上訴委員會接納,稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直,推翻委員會的決定。

參選區議會兩落敗

涉案堂費共75萬元,00至03年支付予大律師公會,稅務局長評估利得稅後,朱奉慈要求委員會覆核,委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支,推翻原本的評稅。

法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞,接納稅務局長上訴指,單純與納稅人業務有關的開支,並不足以視為可扣除開支,必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅,委員會犯了法律錯誤,遂恢復原本的評稅。

現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師,97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時,虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽,又違反向校方的承諾,一邊繼續執業做大律師,一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金,00年經紀律聆訊,被裁定六項指控成立,朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會,均告落敗。 

(Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/06/lawyer-counsel-barrister-george-chu.html)

大律師公會將紀律研訊馬恩國大律師 - Bar Council to Prosecute Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Lawrence Ma for Professional Misconduct

大律師公會將紀律研訊馬恩國大律師 - Bar Council to Prosecute Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Lawrence Ma for Professional Misconduct
Bar Council to Prosecute Barrister Lawrence Ma (Lawyer and Counsel Lawrence Y K Ma) for Professional Misconduct in the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal (BDT) - 大律師公會將紀律研訊馬恩國大律師

http://lawrenceykma.wordpress.com/

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20130218/51269361

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20130718/51568962

2013年7月18日 蘋果日報 即時新聞 (Apple Daily, Instant News, July 18th, 2013)

立法會政制事務委員會今年2月就港府提交《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》報告召開公聽會,民建聯成員、山西政協馬恩國席間與社民連梁國雄在議事廳開火,更以粗口大罵長毛「You are not even a fxxking Chinese!(你都唔×係中國人!)」,社民連黃浩銘隨即去信大律師公會,早前收到回覆,指公會會對馬恩國進行紀律研訊。

當日馬恩國以香港專業人士協會副主席名義出席會議,更自稱:「我係山西省政協,但我係澳洲大律師喎。」黃浩銘認為,馬恩國言論侮辱整個中國群族,有違專業操守,故去信大律師公會投訴年月日蘋果日報即時新聞

黃浩銘續指,馬恩國作為大律師,在公眾場合說粗話已失去其專業形象,更有同業向他反映,認為馬恩國在立法會的態度以大律師自居,態度囂張影衰律師,現時黃浩銘等待研訊結果,並祝馬恩國好運。

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20130718/51569868

2013年7月18日 蘋果日報 即時新聞 (Apple Daily, Instant News, July 18th, 2013)

馬恩國受紀律研訊 - 湯家驊:大狀侮辱別人不能接受

身為執業大律師的民建聯馬恩國 (Barrister Lawrence Ma) 年初在立會爆粗,辱罵政見迥異的社民連梁國雄,社民連黃浩銘早前向大律師公會投訴,不過曾任大律師公會審裁組召集人十多年的公民黨湯家驊表示,相信馬恩國當日表現不致令他除牌,或會被公會譴責。

湯家驊指出,審裁組由一位資深大律師、一位普通大律師,及一位業界以外公眾人士組成聆訊委員會展開聆訊。大律師公會將聘請一律師行轉介的一名大律師作檢控方,提出檢控的罪行相信為「Conduct unbecoming」,即在公眾場所作出不恰當行為,令行業蒙羞:「一般人對大狀期望都係比較講道理,唔會喺公眾場所用一啲粗言污語,去侮辱意見唔同嘅人,唔係可以簡單接受嘅行為。」

http://billsiu.blogspot.hk/2013/07/blog-post_19.html

立會爆粗馬恩國紀律聆訊


【明報專訊】如果讀者好記性,相信都會記得民建聯成員、執業大律師馬恩國 (Counsel, Lawyer and Barrister Lawrence Y K Ma),喺今年2月出席立法會公聽會時,同社民連梁國雄鬧交,當時仲爆出喊出「Bloody Chinese」、「You are not even a fxxking Chinese」等冒犯性字句,事後社民連成員黃浩銘,以及黃毓民議員助理周峻翹,分別去信大律師公會投訴,事隔數月,大律師公會回覆話會展開紀律聆訊。投訴者覺得馬恩國身為大律師,作出粗鄙、帶有歧視及侮辱言論,係嚴重違反公會行為守則等。

話非以「大律師」開會 唔覺失當

馬恩國話,自己已就事件道歉,又話當日係受到挑釁,因此比較情緒化、控制唔到自己講唔應該講嘅嘢,但當日佢唔係以大律師身分開會,唔覺得自己係專業失當。

(19/7/2013 明報)

我以前為馬恩國寫了5篇 (You are not even a fxxxing Chinese :The Fxxxing Barrister 、The Fxxxing Barrister, part II 、The Fxxxing Barrister, part III 、香煙戰爭 及 香煙戰爭續篇),其中The Fxxxing Barrister, part III 講到他違反香港大律師公會專業守則第6(b)條:

6. It is the duty of every barrister
(a) .........

(b) not to engage in conduct (whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise) which is dishonest or which may otherwise bring the profession of barrister into disrepute, or which is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

就算當日並非以大律師身分出席立法會,罵「長毛」時卻一再強調自己是「大」律師,很明顯使大律師行業蒙羞,現在又要死撐,分割這一度使他自滿得頭昏腦脹的驕人身分。可能他看漏了眼,香港大律師公會專業守則第6(b)條包含(whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise)等字眼,不管你當時是否行使大律師的身分,同樣受約束。偷女人內衣的另一位馬大律師,犯案時也不是帶着假髮穿着律師袍,那他就不用受處分嗎?事實上他沒有受處分,因為他自動除名。馬恩國大律師 (Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Lawrence Ma) 藉此開脫,休想!另外,他又講當日受到挑釁(provoke),因此比較情緒化。好心喇,provocation只是求情理由,provocation 用作抗辯,只可以在謀殺罪應用,温下書喇大律師。

(Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/07/lawrencema.html)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal