The SDT ordered that the allegations against the respondent should be dismissed.
The respondent was a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong and was admitted as a solicitor in Singapore. At the material time the respondent was in professional legal practice in Hong Kong. In addition to his professional practice, the respondent was an active participant in Hong Kong politics.
The allegations related to a public meeting held on 17 September 2017 and material made public by the respondent via Facebook between 17 and 19 September 2017. It was alleged that the respondent had made remarks supporting the incitement of violence against political opponents which supported and reinforced comments made by another person, and which breached principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
How Dorset businesses can get support to boost international trade
bridportnews.co.uk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from bridportnews.co.uk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
How Dorset businesses can get support to boost international trade
dorsetecho.co.uk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from dorsetecho.co.uk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £8,000.
While in practice as a recognised sole practitioner at Attiyah Lone & Associates LLP and subsequently at AL Law & Associates Solicitors LLP, the respondent had acted improperly in respect of dealing with monies in which client C had an interest in that he had inappropriately caused or allowed to be transferred the sum of £24,043.28 from Attiyah Lone to firm B; he had inappropriately caused or allowed to be transferred the sum of approximately £80,560, alternatively approximately £73,000, from Attiyah Lone to his business account; and he had inappropriately caused or allowed to be transferred the sum of approximately £73,000 from his business account to firm B; thereby breaching principles 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, failing to achieve outcome 5.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and breaching rules 1.2(b), 13.1, and 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.