SINGAPORE: The Court of Three Judges on Tuesday (Mar 21) handed out a five-year suspension for lawyer M Ravi, the maximum sanction possible for lawyers’ misconduct.
This was for making “grave and baseless accusations of improper conduct” against the Attorney-General, officers from the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Law Society (LawSoc).
In a decision delivered by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, the court said no solicitor can be allowed to “recklessly and baselessly undermine the very pillars of the legal system in which he operates”.
Mr Ravi, whose full name is Ravi Madasamy, has been a lawyer for 20 years. He has made the news several times for his behaviour as well as for his representation of those on death row.
This set of proceedings arose from an interview Mr Ravi, 53, gave to The Online Citizen over the case he was handling for drug runner Gobi Avedian.
In the interview he gave outside the Supreme Court after successfully helping his client escape the gallows, Mr Ravi claimed that the public prosecutor “has been overzealous in his prosecution and that has led to the death sentence of Gobi”.
He also asked the state, the prosecution and the minister of law to apologise to Gobi and said the fairness of the prosecution was “called into question by the court itself”.
AGC later sent Mr Ravi a letter, asking him to apologise and retract the allegations, but Mr Ravi instead published the letter on social media.
He said in his Facebook post that he was “entitled to my criticisms of the unfairness associated to the miscarriage of justice”.
He also said he would commence court proceedings against the AG and others on behalf of Gobi.
He added that he would also commence proceedings against the Law Society if it did not “do its part to protect lawyers and the independence of the profession” or participates in any “harassment by the AG”.
The court noted that this is not the first time Mr Ravi has committed such disciplinary offences.
In 2007, he was suspended for a year for being disrespectful and rude to a district judge in open court.
In 2012, he was given a S$3,000 penalty for making allegations against a High Court judge, including insinuating racial bias.
In 2016, he made baseless allegations against a fellow lawyer and against the president of the Law Society. On this occasion, the court noted Mr Ravi’s mental condition and prohibited him from applying for a practising certificate for two years.
In 2020, he was found guilty of misconduct for making allegations against a deputy public prosecutor and a district judge. The disciplinary tribunal noted his remorse and recommended a penalty of at least S$10,000.
While Mr Ravi’s bipolar disorder was considered in the 2012 and 2016 cases, this was “no longer a live consideration” in the 2020 or current case, the court said.
There was no evidence that his condition had contributed to his misconduct in this case, said the Chief Justice.
At the time of the misconduct, Mr Ravi was practising under a conditional practising certificate which mandated that he had to attend regular medical appointments to monitor his fitness to practise.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that Mr Ravi did not apologise for his misconduct at the hearing, but instead appeared to double down on his allegations against LawSoc and the AG.
He further added that LawSoc was “complicit” in the AG’s harassing him.
Chief Justice Menon said that the whole tenor of Mr Ravi’s arguments made it evident that he viewed himself as a victim of what he believed to be a “dishonourable system” that tolerated “the improper abuse of prosecutorial power by the AG”.
“Within this allegedly unjust and oppressive system, Mr Ravi cast himself as someone who was simply ‘zealously pursuing’ … (his) cause (and) the oath (he had) taken to the rule of law,” said Chief Justice Menon.
He said that the court considers it not necessary to strike Mr Ravi off the roll of advocates and solicitors in the circumstances here.
However, he said the court notes that imposing anything short of the maximum term of suspension currently permitted would be inadequate in addressing the “continuing danger” that Mr Ravi poses to public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore via his “baseless and ill-conceived attacks”.