Jim Yiu Ming (“1st Respondent”) and Krishnan Sundaramoothy (“2nd Respondent”) (collectively, “the Respondents”), both former Partners of Messrs. Jim & Co., Solicitors (an intervened firm) (“the Firm”)

• Section 8 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (“LPO”)
• Rules 8 and 8(2) of the Accountant’s Report Rules (“ARR”)
• Rules 3, 7, 7A, 9A, 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4), 10A and 11 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules (“SAR”)
• Principles 2.03 and 6.04 of The Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct (Volume 1) (3rd Edition) (“Guide”)
• Rule 2(d) and 2(e) of the Solicitors Practice Rules (“SPR”)

Date of hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”):  17 March 2023

Date of the Findings and Order of the Tribunal: 14 November 2023

Date of appeal hearing (CACV 397/2023 & CACV 335/2024 (heard together)): 30 September 2025

Date of Order of the Court of Appeal (“CA”): 30 September 2025

Date of Reasons for Judgment of the CA: 16 October 2025

Disciplinary Proceedings

The Tribunal found the following complaints against the Respondents proved on their own admission:

Complaint 1

Breaches of Section 8 of the LPO and Rule 8(2) of the ARR, in that the Respondents failed to deliver the Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (“the 2016/17 accountant’s report”) within time.

Complaint 2

Breaches of Rules 3 and 9A of the SAR, in that the Respondents paid into the Firm’s office account money which should have been paid into the clients account, failed to remedy the breach on discovery and failed to produce accounting records following a request by the Law Society.

Complaint 3

Breaches of Rules 10(1) and 10(2) of the SAR, in that the Respondents failed to record transactions in the Firm’s books and accounts.

Complaint 4

Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide, in that the Respondents failed to deal fully and promptly with inquiries from the Law Society in connection with the 2016/17 accountant’s report.

Complaint 5

Breaches of Rules 3 and 9A of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents paid into the Firm’s office account money which should have been paid into the clients account, failed to remedy the breach on discovery and failed to produce accounting records following a request by the Law Society.

Complaint 6

Breaches of Rules 10(1) and 10(2) of the SAR, in that the Respondents failed to record transactions in the Firm’s books and accounts.

Complaint 7

Breaches of Section 8 of the LPO and Rule 8 of the ARR, in that the Respondents failed to deliver the Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 (“the 2017/18 accountant’s report”).

Complaint 8

Breach of Principle 6.04 of Guide, in that the Respondents failed to deal fully and promptly with inquiries from the Law Society in connection with the 2017/18 accountant’s report.

Complaint 9

Breaches of Rules 7A and 11 of the SAR, in that the Firm wrongfully authorized a clerk of the Firm, who was neither a solicitor, a certified public accountant (practising) nor an approved person by the Council pursuant to Rule 7A(1) of the SAR, to withdraw money from the Firm’s client accounts to other bank accounts through the online banking system, and failed to produce account mandates in connection with its accounts.

Complaint 10

Breaches of Rules 3, 7, 9A and 10(4) of the SAR, in that the Respondents did not keep a compliant record of bills, miscalculated the amounts of bills, failed to rectify the breaches of the SAR on discovery and improperly withdrew money from the client account.

Complaint 11

Breaches of Rules 3, 9A, 10(1), 10(2) and 11 of the SAR, in that the Respondents failed to deposit client’s money into the Firm’s client account and then failed to rectify those breaches of the SAR on discovery, and from the “Particulars” of the clients’ ledgers, some of the client’s money being the costs on account had been deposited into the office account, but there was no indication as to which office account the sum had been deposited into.

Complaint 12

Breaches of Rules 3, 7, 9A, 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10A and 11 of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents failed to produce monthly reconciliation statements, incorrectly calculated account balances, failed to keep properly written up books and accounts, wrongly deposited clients’ money into its office account and failed to rectify those breaches on discovery.

Complaint 13

Breaches of Rules 3, 9A, 10(1), 10(2), 10(3) and 11 of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents deposited client’s money into the Firm’s office account, failed to record transactions in the Firm’s office cash books, mistakenly recorded transactions in the revised client ledgers, failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence on request and failed to rectify those breaches on discovery.

Complaint 14

Breaches of Rule 10(3) of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents failed to record bills in the relevant accounting ledgers.

Complaint 15

Breaches of Rules 9A, 10(1), 10(2) and 11 of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents failed to record the transactions that took place in the Firm’s client accounts in the clients’ cash books and failed to rectify those breaches on discovery.

Complaint 16

Breaches of Rules 9A, 10(1) and 10(2) of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents improperly recorded transactions in the Firm’s client accounts and failed to rectify those breaches on discovery.

Complaint 17

Breaches of Rules 3, 9A, 10(3) and 11 of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents failed to record in the office cash books 61 transactions appearing in the office accounts, and some of the said transactions were client’s money being costs on account which were discovered from receipts provided to the Law Society.

Complaint 18

Breaches of Rules 3 and 11 of the SAR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide, in that the Respondents deposited client’s money, being costs on account, into the Firm’s office accounts with vague descriptions and failed to produce documentary evidence as requested by the Law Society.

Complaint 19

Breach of Rule 11 of the SAR, in that the Respondents failed to provide accounting books, records and necessary documentation for inspection.

Complaint 20

From the facts of complaints 1 to 19 above, the Respondents engaged in conduct unbefitting of a solicitor and breached Rules 2(d) and 2(e) of the SPR.

On 14 November 2023, the Tribunal ordered that (collectively, “the Order”):

1. the 1^st Respondent was fined HK$30,000 (for each of complaints 2, 5, 9 and 20), HK$15,000 (for each of complaints 1, 3, 6, 7, 10 to 13 and 18), HK$12,000 (for complaint 19), HK$9,000 (for each of complaints 15 to 17), HK$6,000 (for each of complaints 4 and 8) and HK$3,000 (for complaint 14), making a total of HK$309,000 [Note: on appeal from the Law Society in CACV 335/2024 (see below on “Appeal Proceedings”), the Court of Appeal substituted this order by an order that “The 1^st Respondent be suspended from practice for four years with effect from 14 November 2023”];
2. the 2^nd Respondent was fined HK$10,000 (for each of complaints 2, 5, 9 and 20), HK$5,000 (for each of complaints 1, 3, 6, 7, 10 to 13 and 18), HK$4,000 (for complaint 19), HK$3,000 (for each of complaints 15 to 17), HK$2,000 (for each of complaints 4 and 8) and HK$1,000 (for complaint 14), making a total of HK$103,000 [Note: on appeal from the Law Society in CACV 335/2024 (see below on “Appeal Proceedings”), the Court of Appeal substituted this order by an order that “The 2^nd Respondent be suspended from practice for two years with effect from 14 November 2023”];
3. the Respondents be censured generally;
4. with effect from the date of the Order, the Respondents’ practice as a solicitor be subjected to the following conditions for two years (“Conditions”):
   1. each of them cannot practise as a sole proprietor or partner of a solicitors’ firm;
   2. their practice as a solicitor be subject to the supervision of a full-time solicitor of no less than 15 years’ standing and of good standing; and
   3. they shall attend and complete the relevant RME and/or CPD Accounting courses for Solicitors for at least 15 hours with satisfactory result before each of them is issued with his practising certificate; and
5. the Respondents do pay the costs of and incidental to the disciplinary proceedings, as summarily assessed by the Tribunal.

Mr. Geoffrey Shaw of Messrs. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Prosecutor for the Law Society of Hong Kong, the Applicant

Mr. Ludwig Ng, Solicitor Advocate of Messrs. ONC Lawyers, for the Respondents

Mr. Wellington Chao, Clerk to the Tribunal

Tribunal Members:

Mr. Lam Hoy Lee Laurie (Chairman)

Ms. Leung Eviana Bon Yuen

Ir. Chong Kwok Ming Daniel

Appeal Proceedings

Under CACV 397/ 2023, the Respondents lodged an appeal against the Conditions in the Order.

With leave granted on 1 August 2024 under CAMP 366/2023, the Law Society lodged an appeal under CACV 335/2024 against the Order insofar as it imposed a penalty of fines.

On 30 September 2025, the CA allowed the Law Society’s appeal in CACV 335/2024 and dismissed the appeal of the Respondents in CACV 397/2023.  The CA ordered that:

1. in substitution of the penalty of fines in the Order, the 1^st Respondent be suspended from practice for four years and the 2^nd Respondent be suspended from practice for two years, with effect from the date of the Order on 14 November 2023;
2. the Conditions in the Order, the general censure and the costs orders of the Tribunal do stand; and
3. the Respondents do pay the costs of the Law Society in the appeals.

The CA handed down the Reasons for Judgment on 16 October 2025.

Mr. C W Ling, instructed by Messrs. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (up to 30 September 2025) and Messrs. CMS Hong Kong LLP (from 1 October 2025), for the Law Society of Hong Kong

The 1st Respondent acting in person

Mr. James H M McGowan, instructed by Messrs. Krishnan & Tsang, for the 2nd Respondent