By Andrew Loh
Lawyer M Ravi has taken out an application in the courts to “expel” all council members of the Law Society. Mr Ravi, who filed the application on Friday, said of the society, "I am of the view that the Respondent - which is the governing statutory body of amongst other [sic], all practising advocates and solicitors in Singapore - has pursued various judicial and extra-judicial actions against me with malice, bad faith, recklessness and negligence, in breach of statutory and common law duties owed to me as a practising member of the Bar."
He is also asking the courts to order that "elections be called to replace the expelled said current Council members" within 30 days.
Mr Ravi’s actions follow earlier controversial behaviour by the Law Society on 15 July. Mr Wong Siew Hong, chairman of the Law Society’s Member Care Committee, received a letter from psychiatrist, Dr Calvin Fones, who had seen and assessed Mr Ravi’s state of mind on 14 July. In his letter, which was addressed to the “Law Society”, Dr Fones said Mr Ravi was “having a manic relapse of his bipolar disorder” and added that Mr Ravi “is currently unfit to practice law and his illness is likely to affect his professional capacity.”
On 16 July, Mr Wong attempted 3 times to interrupt court proceedings,where Mr Ravi was presenting his cases, to notify the courts of the content of Dr Fones’ letter.
This gave rise to Mr Ravi’s protest that his right to confidentiality had been breached.
Consequently, Mr Ravi sued Mr Wong and the society for defamation. The case is now before the courts. He has also lodged a complaint against the Law Society. Mr Ravi’s latest application on Friday argues that since the society itself is responsible for what had transpired, “each and every member currently therein have shown themselves to be unfit to remain and continue to be Council members of an august and honourable statutory body like the Respondent, much deserving of better leaders at the helm.”
He added that it “is manifestly clear” to him “that by prosecuting such actions with undisguised malice, spite and vindictiveness, without respite and relentlessly, under the authority and complicity of the Council… each and every member currently therein have been tainted with the same malice, spite and vindictiveness.”
Mr Ravi then set out the events which have led to the action he is now taking.
The society’s actions have also been criticised by the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore which said that Mr Wong’s behaviour had “left a very bitter taste in the mouths and has potentially brought the Bar into disrepute.”
On 24 August, a group of members from the Law Society was reported to plan to file a motion for the society to hold an extraordinary general meeting to explain its behaviour leading to the dispute and controversy. It is unclear if the society will hold the meeting.
Also on 24 August, it was reported that the Law Society had made a court application to order Mr Ravi to be “checked by a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health to determine if he is fit to practise law in Singapore.”
Mr Ravi had in the last two months already consulted with two doctors separately. At the last such consultation which took place on 7 August, Mr Ravi saw Dr Munidasa Winslow. “He was well oriented to time, place and person. He was not depressed and his mood was elevated,” Dr Winslow said.
Dr Winslow, who himself was the former chief of the Addiction Medicine Department at the IMH, said “Mr Ravi would benefit from medication to stabilize his mood” but he added that “this need not be imposed on him.”
We understand that Mr Ravi had submitted Dr Winslow’s medical report to the Law Society, following his consultation.