Senior lawyer suspended 15 months for posting plagiarism claims on Facebook before judge’s ruling

SINGAPORE — When the High Court was still deliberating on a criminal appeal he was handling, Mr Zero Nalpon wrote in a public Facebook group that a district judge had plagiarised the prosecution’s submissions when writing his grounds of decision.

On Tuesday (April 12), the Court of Three Judges — the highest disciplinary body that deals with lawyers’ misconduct — ordered a 15-month suspension for the senior lawyer, agreeing that his act amounted to sub judice, or contempt of court.

Sub judice refers to public discussions of a case under judicial consideration that may affect or prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings.

The three judges — Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Senior Judge Chao Hick Tin and Justice Andrew Phang — ordered the suspension due to Mr Nalpon’s Facebook posts and his wilful non-compliance with an order for legal costs, as well as his attempts to garner public support.

In a turn of events, when the High Court eventually agreed with him on the plagiarism claims, Mr Nalpon re-published his Facebook posts. The Court of Three Judges found that this did not amount to sub judice.

WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT

Mr Nalpon’s case involved a man who was convicted in the State Courts of drug consumption and sentenced to 11 months’ jail.

When appealing to the High Court in 2019, Mr Nalpon, who has practised law for 26 years, lodged a complaint that District Judge Mathew Joseph had plagiarised the prosecution’s closing submissions to the point that his grounds of decision were “worthless”.

While the appeal was ongoing, Mr Nalpon then posted these allegations on a public Facebook group named “Law Society versus Zero Nalpon”. It had about 579 members at the time.

The Attorney-General (AG) was later given leave to issue a direction for Nr Nalpon to stop doing this. He removed the posts and was ordered by the court to pay S$2,600 in costs incurred by the AG.

However, he argued that he could not be compelled to pay costs to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) because it was a separate entity from the AG.

The AG maintains a bank account used in the discharge of his official duties under the name of “Attorney-General’s Chambers”.

In May 2019, Justice Aedit Abdullah found that the district judge had indeed copied the prosecution’s closing arguments so substantially that it could not be relied on to justify the accused's conviction and sentence.

“Here, the exercise of judgement was entirely absent. Here, the judge, at least as can be seen from his written judgment, did not judge at all,” Justice Abdullah then said.

Nevertheless, he dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. Mr Nalpon then re-uploaded his posts on Facebook.

Following this, the AGC’s chief prosecutor lodged complaints against him with the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc).

After a hearing before a disciplinary tribunal in December 2020, during which Mr Nalpon declined to give any evidence, the tribunal found him guilty on all four charges.

LawSoc then brought the case to the Court of Three Judges. It argued that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against Mr Nalpon, and sought sanctions of the “highest and most severe level” to reflect the severity of his misconduct.

On his part, Mr Nalpon argued that the disciplinary proceedings stemmed from the AGC’s displeasure over his criticisms of District Judge Joseph’s plagiarism.

EXHIBITIONIST, SELF-AGGRANDISING

In its judgement, the Court of Three Judges set aside two of the charges, which concerned Mr Nalpon making Facebook posts about the disciplinary proceedings.

This was over a technical issue whereby the disciplinary tribunal was not entitled to investigate and make determinations on the charges.

As for the other two charges, the court found that Mr Nalpon’s initial Facebook posts amounted to sub judice and had prejudiced pending court proceedings.

Despite the High Court eventually agreeing with him, Justice Abdullah had not yet decided on the extent and implications of the plagiarism.

Mr Nalpon had contended that his allegation could not be sub judice because the act was a factual matter, but the three judges disagreed, saying it clearly needed judicial determination on Justice Abdullah’s part.

“By these publications, which were deliberate, Mr Nalpon sought to galvanise public sentiment in his client’s favour while the (appeal), in which the very same point had been submitted for determination, had yet to be heard by a judge,” the Court of Three Judges said.

It also agreed with LawSoc that Mr Nalpon had wilfully failed to comply with the order for S$2,600 in costs, falsely alleged in the Facebook group that AGC had asked for payment to be made to a separate entity other than the AG, and published his correspondence with AGC in June 2019.

His allegation was “not only wholly incomprehensible but also clearly mischievous, as he took his campaign to the (virtual) streets”, the judges said.

Mr Nalpon only made payment for the costs in December last year, less than a month before his hearing before the Court of Three Judges. He stressed that this was only “a gesture of goodwill”.

In determining the length of the suspension, the court referred to aggravating factors including his “exhibitionist and self-aggrandising” Facebook posts and his years of experience.

He was also censured by the Court of Three Judges in 2014 for making offensive remarks against prosecutors in letters to the AG, sending the letters to uninvolved third parties, and making statements in an email to others — including other lawyers — to undermine the AG’s integrity.

The three judges then ordered Mr Nalpon to pay LawSoc 85 per cent of costs for these proceedings as well as the disciplinary proceedings.

His Facebook group remains active. Following the judgement, he wrote that he maintains his stance that there was no sub judice, and added: “I guess it is time to take a sabbatical.”