The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) has been made to refund S$32,394.12 in costs to Member of Parliament Christopher James de Souza.

This was after the 47-year-old was acquitted of improper professional conduct as a lawyer.

The MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC was originally made to pay the amount to LawSoc for the disciplinary tribunal proceedings brought against him for misconduct.

His lawyers, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng and Calvin Ong of WongPartnership, said in a statement to Mothership on Nov. 7: "Mr de Souza is humbled by this result and feels fully vindicated, allowing him to continue focusing on his many duties – to family, country and practice."

The sum that came up to more than S$32,000 comprised costs of S$18,000 and S$14,394.12 in disbursements, which are expenses incurred by the law firm on behalf of a client.

About the case

de Souza, who is also Deputy Speaker of Parliament, was found guilty of helping a client suppress evidence from the court by the disciplinary tribunal.

The verdict was overturned by the Court of Three Judges, which acquitted de Souza in July 2023.

Justice Belinda Ang, Justice Woo Bih Li and Justice Kannan Ramesh found that de Souza had not intended to suppress the breach by his client.

It was also found that LawSoc had not made out its charge against de Souza, and that "intention is a necessary ingredient of the charge".

de Souza's lawyers called investigations into de Souza's conduct "unjustified", and that LawSoc had prosecuted their client "in an oppressive and unjustified manner".

The lawyers had also argued for LawSoc to bear costs for the hearing before the Court of Three Judges.

But both sides were ordered to bear their own costs for the Court of Three Judges hearing, as the court was "unconvinced that an adverse costs order should be made" against LawSoc.

The case came about after the client breached de Souza's undertakings to court by using confidential information and documents to file police and other reports against the parties the client was suing.

The confidential information had been obtained due to search orders and to be used only for a High Court suit.

Top photo via Christopher de Souza Facebook