Disgusting Barristers in Hong Kong

方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格  - Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction https://lawyersinhk.blogspot.com/2020/10/barrister-candy-fong-misconduct-conviction.html?m=1 https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20081222/egn200812223579.pdf

Abigail Wong, Parkside Chambers Barrister, Criticized by Judge Andrew Li in DCPI 1635/2019 法官李樹旭批評律政司外聘的大律師黃紀怡花費一共  16  小時盤問一位證人（撇除午飯、休庭），其中有  81  分鐘用來問同一項目，認為她花費太長時間，再三提醒盤問時要實際。 https://hklawyers2021.blogspot.com/2021/12/abigail-wong-parkside-chambers.html https://beta.thestandnews.com/court/now-工程人員採訪被警毆打索償案-律政司花四天盤問-官斥用-81-分鐘問同一項目

Alexandra Chambers Barrister Hylas Chung  Unprofessional, Harmed Others And Did Not Benefit Self - Says Judge Poon  鍾元富大律師被潘敏琦 法官狠批做法不專業損人不利己 https://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.com/2014/01/lawyer-hylas-chung-counsel-barrister-unprofessional.html 香港特別行政區 訴 袁郁鈞 (Reported in: [2007] 1 HKLRD 819) HCMA730/2006 (裁判日期：2007年1月23日) https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=55815&QS=%2B&TP=JU 「上訴人的大律師鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 本身對刑事審訊接納證據的基本法則一知半解，胡亂指控聆訊時代表上訴人的大律師不稱職，不切實際地提昇上訴人對成功上訴的期望、做法不專業，損人不利己 (Unprofessional, Harmed Others And Did Not Benefit Self)，絕對不值得鼓勵或仿效 (Utterly Should Never Be Encouraged Or Imitated。」 - 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦 (Deputy High Court Judge Maggie Poon)

I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Mr Paul CY Wong (黃子元大律師) of Harcourt Chambers for his blatant breach of  paragraphs 4.1(b)(ii), 4.1(b)(iii), 4.1(c), 4.1(d) & 10.34 of the Bar Code , in that he had, in handling a simple civil case -  [2021] HKCFI 1431 - HCA 238/2016 -  completely failed to act competently, in that (1) he did not know  the Mediation Ordinance (Cap 620) existed; and (2) he did not know his entire case was unlawful because he was  unilaterally and wrongfully destroying the confidentiality of mediations in obvious and direct contravention of  the Mediation Ordinance (Cap 620). Mr Paul CY Wong's ignorance in relation to this was worse than a PCLL student in a moot.  He was flagrantly incompetent and obviously so.  As a result of his flagrant incompetence, his client, Mr Leong Chi Kai, was ordered to pay indemnity costs for the entire civil action from beginning to end.  His client, Mr Leong Chi Kai, was also pub

I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Useless Hong Kong Barrister Albert N B Wong (黃雅斌大律師) of Bernacchi Chambers for his blatant breach of  paragraphs 4.1 & 10.5 of the Bar Code , in that he had, in handling a simple District Court Civil Action ( DCCJ 1719 / 2019 ),  completely failed to appreciate (a) that after an unless order had been made against his lay client, it was never up to his lay client, or his instructing solicitors, or himself, to choose to ignore or disobey it without applying for a stay, and without applying for relief against sanction; and (b) that breaching an unless order would result in default judgement being entered against his lay client, namely, former deputy special magistrate Ho Lai Ming.   Barrister  Albert N B Wong 's flagrant incompetence resulted in a default judgement being entered against his lay client,  namely, former deputy special magistrate Ho Lai Ming.  It also resulted in a public judgement being handed down

鄭從展大律師渣到死無鬼用!  Olympia Chambers Barrister James CC Cheng is Useless!  臨近審訊尾段，辯方大律師鄭從展欲在傳召最後一名證人、精神科專家前，呈上一份專家報告，惟報告內含其他不出庭作供的精神科醫生所撰寫的內容。法官張慧玲當時認為，辯方專家不能就「傳聞證供」作供，遂要求辯方修改報告。 惟辯方經多次修訂，仍未達呈堂要求。張官對此大感不滿，認為辯方呈上的報告不妥當，因當中透露了被告過去曾用雙刀架在妻子頸上，「控方都唔提暴力事件，你冇理由自己擺上嚟呀，好唔邏輯喎」。而被告較早時在庭上自辯時稱：「我從來沒有暴力，跟太太吵架都很少，基本上只是辯論。」張官續指，一直有留意鄭大律師的表現，發現其辯護多次與被告指示不符，又提及辯方數次更改抗辯基礎，「最初打自衛已經唔合理，之後又改口打精神有問題」。 張官質疑被告的公平審訊權利是否受保障，一度提出更換律師或解散陪審團重審。張官更提到換大律師的法援安排，鄭大律師澄清自己並非法援律師，張官再斥責：「唔係法援，咁你更加唔妥啦。」 案件編號：HCCC 204 / 2020 https://www.hkcnews.com/article/48746/%E5%92%AC%E7%94%A9%E8%80%B3%E6%9C%B5-48794/%E5%92%AC%E7%94%A9%E8%80%B3%E6%9C%B5