Roderick Miller (“Respondent”), formerly a Partner of Messrs. Miller Peart (a closed firm) (“the Firm”)

Rules 2(a), 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (“SPR”)

Rules 7, 8(1), 9A, 10 and 10A of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules (“SAR”)

Principles 12.05 and 13.02 of The Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, Volume 1, 2^nd Edition (“Guide”)

Date of Hearing: 4 August 2016, 23 November 2016, 28 February 2017 and 21 April 2017

Date of the Findings and Order: 2 October 2018

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the following complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission:

Complaint 1

The Respondent breached Rules 2(a) and 2(d) of the SPR by failing to comply with a Notice of Inspection issued under Section 8AA of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance.

Complaint 2

The Respondent breached Rule 7 of the SAR in that he transferred and/or allowed a sum to be transferred from the Firm’s client account to the bank account of the Hong Kong Solicitors Indemnity Fund Limited for payment of the Firm’s contribution to the Professional Indemnity Fund, in circumstances which were not permitted under Rule 7 of the SAR.

Complaint 3

The Respondent breached Rule 7 of the SAR in that on divers occasions, he drew and/or allowed money to be drawn from the Firm’s client account for payment of the Firms’ office expenses, in circumstances which were not permitted under Rule 7 of the SAR.

Complaint 4 

The Respondent breached Rule 7 of the SAR in that he drew or allowed money to be drawn from the Firm’s client accounts such that there were debit balances in those client accounts, in circumstances which were not permitted under Rule 7 of the SAR.

Complaint 5

The Respondent breached Rule 8(1) of the SAR in that on divers date, he drew or allowed cash to be drawn from the Firm’s client accounts as “costs”.

Complaint 6 

The Respondent breached Rule 10 of the SAR in that he failed to keep properly written up books and accounts to show the Firm and/or his dealings with client’s money, contrary to sub-rule (1) thereof; and/or he failed to record these dealings within 3 working days, contrary to sub-rule (2) thereof; and/or that all other dealings were not recorded before the end of the month following the month in which the dealings were carried out, contrary to sub-rule (3) thereof.

Complaint 7

The Respondent breached Rule 10A of the SAR in that he failed to prepare bank reconciliation statements with regard to the Firm’s client accounts.

Complaint 8

The Respondent breached Principle 13.02 of the Guide and Rules 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) of the SPR in that he drew or allowed to be drawn cheques from the Firm’s client accounts which were not honoured.

Complaint 9

The Respondent breached Principle 12.05 of the Guide and Rules 2(a) and 2(d) of the SPR in that he failed to pay counsel fees within 2 months of submission of counsel’s fee note.

Complaint 10

The Respondent breached Rule 9A of the SAR in that he failed to remedy promptly his breaches of the SAR.

The Tribunal ordered that:

1. the Respondent be fined HK$60,000 for Complaint 6; HK$50,000 for each of Complaints 1, 5, 7 and 9, HK$40,000 for Complaint 8; HK$20,000 for each of Complaints 2, 3 and 4; and HK$10,000 for Complaint 10; i.e. in the total sum of HK$370,000;
2. for a period of three years from the date of the Order, the Respondent cannot practise in Hong Kong as a sole proprietor or partner of a firm of solicitors.  During such period, any practising certificate issued to the Respondent should be issued subject to the condition that he cannot during the subject period prepare, handle or sign any vouchers, journals, receipts, cheques or any other documents relating to money of the clients of such firm or office money of such firm or handle in any manner whatsoever money of the clients of such firm or office money of such firm; and
3. the Respondent do pay costs of the proceedings including the costs of the Law Society and the costs of the Clerk of the Tribunal on a full indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
   
    

Mr. Malcolm Kemp of Messrs. Stephenson Harwood, Prosecutor for The Law Society of Hong Kong, the Applicant

The Respondent acting in person in the hearing on 4 August 2016

Mr. James McGowan, instructed by Messrs. Tanner de Witt, for the Respondent, in the hearings on 23 November 2016, 28 February 2017 and 21 April 2017

Mr. Ting Koon Hung, Clerk to the Tribunal

Tribunal Members:

Mr. Wong Kwok Ki, Stephen (Chairman)

Mrs. Cheung Po Yee, Peggy

Dr. Ching Tang Foon, Stephen

Appeal Proceedings

Under CACV 529/2018, the Respondent lodged an appeal against the penalty and costs order made by the Tribunal.  Upon the Respondent’s further application, on 18 November 2021, the Court of Appeal granted leave for the Respondent to adduce further evidence.  

On 29 July 2024, the Court of Appeal found a case of apparent bias of the Chairman of the Tribunal to be established, allowed the appeal and ordered that:

1. the financial penalties for the 10 complaints be reduced to a total amount of HK$250,000; 
2. the conditions imposed on the practising certificate of the Respondent be varied so as to commence on 1 June 2017 for 3 years; and
3. costs of the disciplinary proceedings be borne by the Respondent on a party-and-party basis, subject to the question of summary assessment or reasonable contribution. 

On 9 June 2025, the Court of Appeal further ordered that:

1. the Respondent do pay reasonable contribution towards costs of the Law Society, as summarily assessed by the Court;
2. the Law Society do pay costs to the Respondent for the appeal, as summarily assessed by the Court; and
3. the penalty of HK$250,000 and the costs (after set off) be paid by the Respondent by monthly instalments to the Law Society, to be split between the penalty and costs until full payment.  

Upon the Respondent’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the costs order dated 9 June 2025, on 6 January 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s application with costs to the Law Society.  On 24 February 2026, the Court allowed costs for the Law Society, as summarily assessed by the Court.

Mr. Jason Toms, Solicitor Advocate, instructed by Messrs. M. B. Kemp LLP, for the Law Society of Hong Kong
Mr. James McGowan, instructed by Messrs. Chan & Ho, for the Respondent