Ex-partners of law firm told to pay $380k

TWO lawyers will have to pay a former client some $380,000 swiped by their partner, who is on the run.

Lawyers Sadique Marican and Anand Kumar had been partners in the same law firm as Zulkifli Amin, who skipped town in November 2007 with more than $6 million reported missing.

This is the first lawsuit believed to be settled in the High Court regarding Amin’s misdeeds. There are three others filed in the High Court and 13 in the Subordinate Courts.

In this case, the money was paid by victim Mohamed Nizam Ismail, who had hired the firm in 2007 to buy a $700,000 flat in Rose Lane.

On Amin’s advice, he made various payments to the firm for the sale.

But only $35,000 was paid by the firm to the seller’s lawyers and the remaining sum was apparently filched by Amin, who handled the case.

When the sale was not completed by the Nov 16, 2007 deadline, the sellers cancelled the deal and kept the deposit.

The buyer argued, through lawyer K. Mathialahan, that the other partners of the firm were liable for the fraud Amin had committed.

But Mr Sadique countered that Amin had acted beyond his authority and his former partners did not know what he was up to at the time of the fraud.

They had gone to the High Court to appeal against the ruling made against them by a lower court which was based on documents and arguments made by lawyers.

They asked for a trial, to be heard by a judge, with witnesses put on the stand.

Mr Sadique urged the court to rescind the summary judgment against them by the lower court and cited a list of issues that can only be settled through a full trial.

Such a move would allow the court to inquire if the buyer, Mr Nizam, had himself been negligent, among other things.

But in a judgment published yesterday, Justice Choo Han Teck rejected the claims and held that the issues raised had been sufficiently covered.

The judge said there was nothing said or submitted that challenged Mr Nizam’s conduct in the case.

‘The transaction to purchase the property was a regular one. The firm’s conduct of the transaction as the purchaser’s solicitors was not.’

Contacted yesterday, Mr Sadique said he was considering an appeal.

The fallout for the two former partners who stand to pick up the tab for Amin’s disappearance with $6 million appears to be far from over.

Another negligence suit for damages, brought by a couple seeking more than $200,000, will be assessed in the High Court next month.

But it is understood that both lawyers are moving on. They are in a new firm, and may seek coverage from insurers for the negligence-based suits as well as legal redress for any cheques forged by Amin to draw funds.

Amin, 34, had been in charge of the firm’s property and conveyancing section when the flurry of failed property transactions occurred. The police are looking for him.

Source: Straits Times,16 July 2009