Hong Kong Solicitor Jerry Jim of Jim & Co is an Arrogant Useless Disgusting Idiot

Hong Kong Solicitor Jerry Jim of Jim & Co is an Arrogant Useless Disgusting Idiot

http://www.document-hkba.org/28b3c56435d57786001490eb9895d86828892075.pdf

The Council of the Law Society has notified the Bar of its resolution passed on 18 June 2019 to intervene in the practice of Messrs Jim & Co, Solicitors pursuant to section 26A(1)(c) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159). The intervention commenced on 20 June 2019

https://www.hklii.org/eng/hk/cases/hkdc/2018/1514.html

CHU KAN WING v. HA PO YING the administratrix of the estate of CHU SIU WING, DECEASED

[2018] HKDC 1514 - "I regret to say that the absence of Jim & Co. this morning without any permission from the court is a disrespect to the court.  I direct that a copy of this decision be sent to the Law Society for their consideration and action."

https://www.hklii.org/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2018/2836.html

SOPHISTICATED MATERIALS LTD v. SIDEPEC INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

[2018] HKCFI 2836 - "Mr Jerry Jim, Solicitor for P, submitted inter alia that I should dismiss the Summons. Mr Jim was however wholly unable to answer the 2 points submitted to me on behalf of D2 as set out above."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal Complaint Against Barrister Sakinah Sat (薩忻琪大律師) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K.

Formal Complaint Against Barrister Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K. I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K., for her blatant breach of  paragraphs 10.29 & 10.30 of the Bar Code , in that she has failed to act with candour and independence in the interests of justice, and  knowingly deceived or misled the Court , in her ex parte Court Application before David Lok J on 22 August 2020 (Saturday).   The material facts had been set out in  [2020] HKCFI 2288 (HCMP 1282/2020)  -  https://legalref. judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ search/search_result_detail_ frame.jsp?DIS=130716&QS=%2B& TP=JU  - where Linda Chan J said these about Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers: -   12.  Indeed, although the contemporaneous documents referred to i
Read more

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗 HKSAR v. FONG E-FONG CANDY -  HCMA 108/2020 - ​[2020] HKCFI 3133 //The appellant was convicted after trial of one charge of Common Assault and fined HK$3,000.  The appellant appeals against her conviction.// //On appeal, the appellant made this court sit through repeated viewing of the CCTV footage alleging that she had been kicked.  I could not see that she was kicked.// //... my observation from having viewed the CCTV footage many times was that it can be seen from the footage that the appellant had intentionally grabbed hold of PW2 by putting her arm around the neck of PW2 in order to stop the wheelchair from moving and in order to get close to him in order to speak to him.  I therefore find that the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and therefore the appeal is dismissed.// https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/ 2020/HCMA000108_2020.doc 方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Can
Read more

Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction - 方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格

方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20081222/egn200812223579.pdf In accordance with section 37A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Chapter 159), I hereby give notice that on 15 April 2008 a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found FONG E-fong, Candy (‘the Barrister’) guilty of 3 complaints of misconduct, namely:— (i) engaging in conduct which brought the profession of barristers into disrepute contrary to paragraph 6(b) of the Bar Code; (ii) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice contrary to paragraph 6(b) of the Bar Code; (iii) acting without due courtesy to the Court. The Tribunal ordered, amongst others, that the Barrister be suspended from practising as a barrister for 9 months, 6 months and 3 months for the respective complaints, to run concurrently. The Tribunal also ordered that such period of suspension should commence after the appeal period, which appeal period was to run from 29 Ap
Read more