一位讀者在大律師非禮之三 留言，告訴我判辭已經上載了，等待看我的評論。這讀者實在抬舉了標少，我是勇於評論，淺見視作卓見的人。淺陋的話講多了，讀者聽慣了，漸漸以為是大道理，就好像聽人搬弄是非，久而久之，便成為揑造出來的事實。
香港特別行政區 訴 李淑妍 HCMA451/2011就是指責大律師非禮作為其中一個上訴理由的案件。暫委法官彭寶琴的判辭寫得過於冗贅，文筆應多加磨練。上訴得直，理據unconvincing and arguable. 彭法官指大律師鄭紀天嚴重失職，在判辭中所舉例證，未能使我信服。判辭中引用終審法院的HKSAR v. Chong Ching Yuen[2004] 2 HKLRD 681一案，我在大律師非禮之二 一文也講過，我認為鄭紀天只是失職，而不致於嚴重失職(flagrantly incompetent)。在判辭第35段，彭官引用控方證人向被告發出的手機短訊其中一段，作為證人要使被告失去工作(被告是女警)而誣揑她的例子。
35. 另外，一則在2010年11月21日1630時，由控方第一證人發給上訴人的短訊顯示：「我原本打算令你連工都冇得做，你這個人根本不適合做警察，也好的，你是時候為做過的事補償，保唔保得住份工，等差人幫你搞啦，但如果你咁睇重份工，你唔會一而再，再而三做錯事。」這則短訊的發出日期，是控方第一證人就本案的控罪（一）至（三）向警署舉報的前一天。
看這短訊的內容，我會持相反的看法。彭官在這件案被代表上訴人的黃達華大律師牽着鼻子走。提出鄭紀天非禮，目的是影響法庭對他的印象，以加強嚴重失職的指控，事實上兩者風馬牛不相及。換了是我，我會裁定律師既無嚴重失職，審訊也沒不公，反而可指證人與被告這同性情侶，關係糾纏不清，又愛又恨，落案以後還住在一起，忽然又反臉，這事實的裁斷，定罪並不隱妥，作為上訴得直的理由。
香港特別行政區 訴 李淑妍 HCMA451/2011就是指責大律師非禮作為其中一個上訴理由的案件。暫委法官彭寶琴的判辭寫得過於冗贅，文筆應多加磨練。上訴得直，理據unconvincing and arguable. 彭法官指大律師鄭紀天嚴重失職，在判辭中所舉例證，未能使我信服。判辭中引用終審法院的HKSAR v. Chong Ching Yuen[2004] 2 HKLRD 681一案，我在大律師非禮之二 一文也講過，我認為鄭紀天只是失職，而不致於嚴重失職(flagrantly incompetent)。在判辭第35段，彭官引用控方證人向被告發出的手機短訊其中一段，作為證人要使被告失去工作(被告是女警)而誣揑她的例子。
35. 另外，一則在2010年11月21日1630時，由控方第一證人發給上訴人的短訊顯示：「我原本打算令你連工都冇得做，你這個人根本不適合做警察，也好的，你是時候為做過的事補償，保唔保得住份工，等差人幫你搞啦，但如果你咁睇重份工，你唔會一而再，再而三做錯事。」這則短訊的發出日期，是控方第一證人就本案的控罪（一）至（三）向警署舉報的前一天。
看這短訊的內容，我會持相反的看法。彭官在這件案被代表上訴人的黃達華大律師牽着鼻子走。提出鄭紀天非禮，目的是影響法庭對他的印象，以加強嚴重失職的指控，事實上兩者風馬牛不相及。換了是我，我會裁定律師既無嚴重失職，審訊也沒不公，反而可指證人與被告這同性情侶，關係糾纏不清，又愛又恨，落案以後還住在一起，忽然又反臉，這事實的裁斷，定罪並不隱妥，作為上訴得直的理由。
Can the client sue the trial counsel for civil claim and ask for legal costs in both trial and appeal? Can she complain to hkba as well?
回覆刪除The lay client certainly can lodge a complaint to HKBA. Civil claim of this nature I have not heard of. I did not normally pay attention to civil matters. In any event, lawyers are covered by professional indemnity. Any damages awarded will not come from the counsel's pocket. As I said in the blog, the deputy judge's finding of flagrant incompetence is arguable. A civil case before another judge may result in a different finding.
刪除I read from somewhere that Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had been sued by their former clients? Have you read about that? Let me copy and paste what I have read: -
刪除http://newsofhksar.blogspot.hk/2015/01/lawyers-counsel-barristers-eric-kwok-sc-and-vivian-ho-sued-for-gross-misconduct-and-negligence.html
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20131117/00176_041.html
Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Lawyer Counsel Barrister Vivian Ho Sued for Serious Misconduct and Negligence - 資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻被控嚴重失職及疏忽
中原地產多名高層之前被廉政公署刑事檢控，指他們涉嫌支付非法回佣予交易客戶，眾被告○八年在區院被裁定串謀詐騙等罪成立及判囚；其中一名總經理潘志明被判囚廿二個月，他在服刑十四個月後於高院上訴得直，撤銷定罪後重返中原工作。他昨日入稟高院民事指控在原審時代表他的資深大律師郭棟明及律師行失職、疏忽及違反聘約，要求對方賠償他損失，但未有透露金額。
原告潘志明（四十九歲），事發時是中原（工商舖）商舖部總經理，現時擔任中原（工商舖）營運總監；三名被告依次是翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻。
上訴庭：令原告得不到公平審訊原告於○八年受審時，控方指他涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中詐騙中原，指其私人公司是交易介紹人，向中原申領約六十萬元介紹費後，將錢交予買家羅家寶的職員作回佣。惟上訴庭判他脫罪時指，羅家寶曾向廉署錄口供指其職員毋須批准便收取回佣；另外，中原集團主席施永青亦曾供稱，指若知收回佣者是獲僱主同意，就算同事填報的介紹人是虛假也會照批介紹費，不認為這是詐騙。
雖然原審法官在判決時批評中原此種做法，是鼓勵貪污風氣及對旗下員工的監察未夠嚴謹；惟上訴庭指，原審時若原告律師有向施永青提出羅家寶的供詞，便會成為原告沒有詐騙的有力證據；但原告律師並沒這樣做，這屬嚴重失職令原告得不到公平審訊，因此撤銷原告的定罪。
原告在入稟狀指，原審時控方在案件開審前大半年，已表明有羅家寶的供詞但不會呈堂；但被告一方卻告訴原告，羅家寶的供詞「無足輕重」而無向控方索取。另外在施永青作供後，被告一方亦無向原告解釋施的供詞對其抗辯有關鍵幫助，亦無傳召羅做辯方證人等，原告認為被告此舉屬失職。
案件編號： HCA 2221/2013
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1358092/centaline-property-agent-sues-law-firm-barristers-who-represented-him
A property agency manager has sued a law firm and two of its barristers (Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Barrister Vivian Ho), claiming they failed in their duty to defend him against allegations that he paid kickbacks to secure a deal.
Poon Chi-ming, formerly a general manager at Centaline Commercial, was convicted in June 2008 of two counts of conspiracy to defraud in the District Court and jailed for 22 months.
The ruling was overturned on appeal and he was released after spending 14 months in jail.
Poon, now chief operating officer of Centaline Commercial, filed the High Court writ on Friday against the law firm, Simon C.W. Yung & Co, and the barristers, Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho.
Poon and two other agents were found guilty of conspiring to deceive Centaline into paying HK$600,000 in kickbacks to a private company in two transactions between 2005 and 2006. They had claimed the money was paid as referral fees to an employee of a company buying a commercial property.
Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho represented Poon in the District Court trial.
Poon hired another legal team to represent him on appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in his favour and quashed his conviction in March 2010. Poon was released after spending 14 months in jail.
The appeal court judges found that the Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to make good use of a witness statement, meaning Poon missed out on a fair trial.
The statement was made by billionaire Law Kar-po, the boss of the company which was buying the property. Law told the Independent Commission Against Corruption that he had known about the deal and allowed his employee to accept the referral fees from the property agent.
The statement had been given to Poon's lawyers before the trial.
The appeal court found the defence counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to use the statement when questioning Centaline chairman Shih Wing-ching. Shih was a witness in the trial and testified that if he knew the firm had agreed to the employee receiving referral fees, it would have paid the commission and not felt it had been deceived.
In the writ, Poon claims that Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho, and the law firm Simon C Y Yung & Co Solicitors, failed to appreciate that Law's statement contained crucial evidence.
He also says they failed to instruct Poon to call Law and other related parties as defence witnesses.