Hong Kong Lawyer 2025

Barrister Alan Hoo SC Convicted Criminal 胡漢清 資深大律師 罪成 -  資深大律師胡漢清涉於去年8月在西半山景雅花園外不小心駕駛 ，以及沒有在要求下提供資料，被控兩項傳票控罪，案件今（ 27日）於東區裁判法院裁決，裁判官林子康裁決時指， 胡在前方的車輛停定不足2秒，其車輛已起步横越雙白線， 認為其表現遠遜於謹慎而合格的駕駛者， 遂裁定其2項傳票控罪罪成 -  https://www.hk01.com/article/60288999

Parkside Chambers Barrister Robin Egerton Sued For Negligence - By Former Barrister Mark Sutherland https://indemnitycosts.wordpress.com/2023/06/04/parkside-chambers-barristers-peter-barnes-robin-egerton-sued-by-barrister-mark-sutherland/ https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-barrister-who-made-his-clients-accuser-measure-her-bum-sues-his-own-lawyers Mark Sutherland has accused a Hong Kong firm, two barristers, and a solicitor of professional negligence, breach of agreement, breach of contract, and breach of their fiduciary duties for the advice they provided Sutherland on his “various disputes with his wife at the time”.   Sutherland is suing Hampton Winter & Glynn, Parkside Chambers barristers Peter HC Barnes and Robin Egerton, and Chow Ruskin Brown founding partner Jain Ruskin Brown for damages relating to, amongst other things, £100,000 (HK$1,068,746) in wasted counsel’s fees, £150,000 (HK$1,500,000) he transferred to his daughter’s school, and for allowi...

孫子恒大律師俾法官喪鬧 IceHouse Chambers Barrister Henry CH Suen Criticized By Judge DCPI1540/2022 法官羅麗萍花逾半小時，批評郭的代表大律師孫子恒， 在開案陳詞將醫療紀錄、專家報告「一字不漏抄出嚟」、「 你自己睇見都難堪啦」，又指當中逾半內容為複述，沒作出解釋、 總結，強調法庭時間寶貴，「從來未見過一個咁樣嘅開案陳詞」、「 你用個心去做先得㗎」 https://thewitnesshk.com/7- 14沙田受傷警向兩示威者索償-官斥原告大狀開案大/

Bernacchi Chambers Barrister Steven Kwan Sued By Other Lawyers 關文渭大律師俾人告 - HCA1990/2025 -  暫委特委裁判官何麗明，於2018年審理一宗簡單及最高刑罰為罰款500港元的行人疏忽過路傳票案，卻花上91天才將案審結，最終案中女被告獲判無罪。但何拒絕向被告批出訟費，並指辯方2名律師誤導法庭及拖延審訊，下令支付共約62萬港元訟費給控方。上訴庭其後裁定兩名律師上訴得直，毋須支付訟費。該兩名律師於昨日(13日)入稟高院，指該宗疏忽過路案的主控及何麗明等在審訊中支持並鼓勵對方浪費法庭時間，而何官的訟費命令，令原告的職業聲譽受損，故要求賠償共2,140萬港元。 原告為大律師梁耀祥和律師侯振輝，被告依次為該疏忽過路案的主控關文渭、負責該案的律政司人員、時任暫委特委裁判官何麗明及律政司司長。據入稟狀指，原告認為眾被告處理該宗疏忽過路案時應不偏不倚持續評估檢控是否符合公共利益，避免浪費法庭時間，但眾被告在審訊中重複證據及進行冗長且無關的盤問，拒絕簡化處理案件。原告又指何曾濫用司法權力，對該案被告Thapa Kamala和其法律團隊存在偏見，例如審訊時曾因Thapa遲到一分鐘而要求她交出保釋金100港元、重複提出就無關痛癢的法律議題陳詞，以及挑剔原告，甚至發表侮辱性言論。 入稟狀又指控方案情薄弱，案件首次於裁判法院提堂時，但律政司仍然提告。原告指Thapa經審訊後獲無罪釋放，首三名被告卻濫用職權，故要求原告就審訊超時負責。而何麗明又向兩名原告頒下共約62萬港元訟費命令，令原告在其後的上訴過程中花費大量法律費用，職業聲譽和精神蒙受損失。原告最終要求各被告分別就瀆職、作惡意檢控、對原告懷有敵意等，作出賠償、懲罰性損害賠償、加重損害賠償等共2,140萬港元。 https://buff.ly/jCZhimL  - Barristers Kelvin Leung and How Chun-fai filed a writ on Tuesday claiming HK$21.4 million from parties including then-Deputy Special Magistrate Ho Lai-ming and Steven Kwan, a private lawye...

Bernacchi Chambers Barrister Steven Kwan Sued By Other Lawyers 關文渭大律師俾人告 - HCA1990/2025 -  https://thewitnesshk.com/審91天亂 過馬路案-兩辯方律師向外聘主控官等索償/     -  暫委特委裁判官何麗明，於2018年審理一宗簡單及最高刑罰為罰款500港元的行人疏忽過路傳票案，卻花上91天才將案審結，最終案中女被告獲判無罪。但何拒絕向被告批出訟費，並指辯方2名律師誤導法庭及拖延審訊，下令支付共約62萬港元訟費給控方。上訴庭其後裁定兩名律師上訴得直，毋須支付訟費。該兩名律師於昨日(13日)入稟高院，指該宗疏忽過路案的主控及何麗明等在審訊中支持並鼓勵對方浪費法庭時間，而何官的訟費命令，令原告的職業聲譽受損，故要求賠償共2,140萬港元。 原告為大律師梁耀祥和律師侯振輝，被告依次為該疏忽過路案的主控關文渭、負責該案的律政司人員、時任暫委特委裁判官何麗明及律政司司長。據入稟狀指，原告認為眾被告處理該宗疏忽過路案時應不偏不倚持續評估檢控是否符合公共利益，避免浪費法庭時間，但眾被告在審訊中重複證據及進行冗長且無關的盤問，拒絕簡化處理案件。原告又指何曾濫用司法權力，對該案被告Thapa Kamala和其法律團隊存在偏見，例如審訊時曾因Thapa遲到一分鐘而要求她交出保釋金100港元、重複提出就無關痛癢的法律議題陳詞，以及挑剔原告，甚至發表侮辱性言論。 入稟狀又指控方案情薄弱，案件首次於裁判法院提堂時，但律政司仍然提告。原告指Thapa經審訊後獲無罪釋放，首三名被告卻濫用職權，故要求原告就審訊超時負責。而何麗明又向兩名原告頒下共約62萬港元訟費命令，令原告在其後的上訴過程中花費大量法律費用，職業聲譽和精神蒙受損失。原告最終要求各被告分別就瀆職、作惡意檢控、對原告懷有敵意等，作出賠償、懲罰性損害賠償、加重損害賠償等共2,140萬港元。 https://buff.ly/jCZhimL  - Barristers Kelvin Leung and How Chun-fai filed a writ on Tuesday claiming HK$21.4 million from parties including t...

鹹濕事務律師林洋鋐被控非禮 KCCC2715/2025 - https://thewitnesshk.com/律師林洋鋐被控非禮刑事恐嚇等4罪-准保釋11-10再訊/

周啟邦律師事務所俾香港高等法院上訴庭鬧 - K B Chau & Co Solicitors Criticized by Court of Appeal in [2018] HKCA 210 [2018] 2 HKLRD 864! https://kbchausolicitorscritizied.blogspot.com/2018/06/k-b-chau-co-solicitors-criticized-by-the-hong-kong-court-of-appeal.html https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=114747&currpage=T 62.  After the conclusion of the hearing, and without seeking leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiffs, William’s solicitors made further submissions by letter with proposals of directions from this court to the judge.  This is highly unsatisfactory and such practice has been rightly deprecated in a number of decisions, including To Pui Kui v Ng Kwok Piu & Ors, CACV 281/2012, 21 August 2014, at §§55 to 61.  Mr Chua did not seek an adjournment of the hearing to deal with any further point he might wish to address, nor did he give any indication at the hearing he needed to do further research to supplement his submissions.  There ...

Hong Kong Law Firm Lawrence Y W Ng & Co Solicitors Disgusting 吳耀華律師行不知所謂！

Law Firm Hogan Lovells' Solicitor Hazel Law Criticized by Judge Herbert Au-Yeung in JTM324 v Permex [2023] 1 HKLRD 1437 [2023] HKCFI 403 for failing to put her duty to the Court above her duty to her client.  Lawyer Hazel Law is not a fit and proper person to be a Litigation Solicitor in Hong Kong.  https://indemnitycosts.wordpress.com/2023/04/30/hogan-lovells-solicitor-hazel-law-criticized-by-dhcj-herbert-au-yeung/ https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=150553&currpage=T

Lui & Law Solicitors Sued For Negligence - 呂羅律師事務所被指控疏忽失職 https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20200601/mobile/bkn-20200601131823482-0601_00822_001.html 香港浸信會聯會因捐款問題，近年多次與南太電子創辦人、「電子大王」顧明均訴訟。會方上星期五（5月29日）入稟高院原訟庭，指控其前法律代表在處理該些案件時疏忽導致它蒙受損失，向該律師行索償至少3200多萬港元。本案原告香港浸信會聯會在入稟狀表示，曾委託被告呂羅律師事務所曾處理3宗訴訟，當中包括顧明均要求原告退還捐予母校培正小學的2000萬港元、顧呈請原告清盤、及顧控告原告誹謗之案件。資料顯示，顧其後獲退回2000萬港元捐款。清盤案方面，原告亦須向顧支付訟費。至於誹謗案件，法院則判顧勝訴，原告須向顧作賠償及支付訟費。原告在入稟狀指，被告在處理上述3宗案件時疏忽及違反合約，要求它賠償原告的損失。就退還捐款案，原告現要求被告賠償捐款本金2000萬港元、利息1068萬多港元，再加付給顧的訟費。清盤案方面，原告就要被告負責原告付給顧的訟費，金額不少於25萬港元。而在誹謗案中，原告就表示它要向顧賠償48萬多港元、訟費82萬多港元，另外原告為刊登道歉啟事，亦花了近4萬港元。原告現要求被告全數賠償上述費用，以及原告自己花費在這3宗案件中的費用。

I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Nicholas Pirie, for his blatant breach of  paragraph 4.1(d) of the Bar Code , which says: - "It is the duty of every barrister... to be competent in all his professional activities." Judge  Levy openly s aid Barrister Nicholas Pirie's written submissions were   "full of multiple errors... some of them are incomprehensible"   in DCEC 1082/2017 & DCPI 2318/2017 - Wong Kwei Piu v Chow Chi Cheung [2023] HKDC 1253 (§58): -   https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=155169&currpage=T A Barrister must be incompetent if his written submissions were full of multiple errors and incomprehensible. Please immediately proceed to prosecute Hong Kong Barrister  Nicholas Pirie  for professional misconduct accordingly. 

Harcourt Chambers Barrister Chow Hang Tung (A Twice Convicted Serial Criminal Who Had Brought The Hong Kong Bar Into Disrepute) Should be Struck Off! -  支聯會鄒幸彤大律師應該要被永久釘牌!  See WKCC 2595/2021 [2022] HKMagC 1: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=141434&currpage=T See: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3162045/tiananmen-vigil-hong-kong-activist-jailed-10-extra "A former vice-chairwoman of the group behind Hong Kong’s Tiananmen Square vigil has been ordered to serve 10 extra months behind bars on top of her existing one-year term, after a magistrate convicted her of inciting others to join last year’s banned event. Chow Hang-tung, formerly affiliated with the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, was on Tuesday sentenced to 15 months in prison for her role in instigating the illegal Victoria Park gathering on June 4, 2021, through her remarks in two articles published on social ...

Lawyer and Senior Counsel Daniel Fung SC Misconduct Convicted - 馮華健資深大律師專業失當罪成 https://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20100706/00176_015.html https://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.com/2014/01/Daniel-Fung-SC-DVC-Des-Voeux-Chambers-Guilty-of-Professional-Misconduct.html Barrister Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), was found guilty of professional misconduct on February 1 by the tribunal, chaired by Peter Ng Kar-fai SC. On June 2, he was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000. He was found guilty of failing to inform the Court of Appeal in 2005 about clauses of a legislative provision that were unfavourable to his client, Hong Kong Island Development, in a tenancy lawsuit. The firm is a unit of New World Development Group. According to a note on the tribunal's judgment, Fung's failure to draw the court's attention to the point was contrary to the Bar's Code of Conduct. The full judgment has not been made public and...

Hong Kong Barrister Chan Ka Sing Misconduct Convicted  陳家昇大律師失德行為罪成  On 12 November 2018, two Complaints were lodged with the Convenor of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal (“the BDT”) against Mr. Chan Ka Sing (“Mr. Chan”) concerning his conduct when he was instructed to represent a defendant in High Court Criminal Case No. 145 of 2014 (“the Criminal Case”).   The Complaints are, in summary, as follows: (i) Complaint 1: Mr. Chan failed his duty as a practising barrister to be competent in all his professional activities when representing the defendant in the Criminal Case in mitigation. (ii) Complaint 2: Mr. Chan took instructions from the defendant prior to the hearing of the Criminal Case without the presence of the person instructing him or his representatives. Hong Kong Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mr Chan Ka Sing (陳家昇大律師) admitted to the Complaints in the BDT proceedings.  By a Statement of Findings dated 24 January 2019, the BDT found Mr. Chan guilty of the ...

Hong Kong Solicitor Au Wing Lun William Nonsensical & Absurd, Said Poon J https://indemnitycosts.wordpress.com/2023/04/17/hong-kong-solicitor-william-au-nonsensical-absurd-said-poon-j/ http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2007/719.html AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS [2007] HKCFI 719; HCA 811/2007 (13 July 2007) Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solici...

Hong Kong High Court Judge Wilson Chan was found by the Court of Appeal to have plagiarised much of a written judgement for a trademark dispute case, lifting 98 per cent from a plaintiff’s written submission. 高院法官陳嘉信判詞4度被質疑其中一份涉98%抄襲張舉能：不能接受已嚴肅訓誡 上周五（9 日）一宗民事案判詞，揭發《國安法》指定法官、高院法官陳嘉信就「黃道益案」寫判詞時涉「司法抄襲」（judicial copying）。該案被告在上訴時指陳撰寫的判詞，逾 98% 內容皆來自原告的書面陳詞。上訴庭批評陳全盤抄襲原告，必然會令敗訴一方感委屈，覺得法官「走捷徑」及放棄了其司法責任，最後裁定被告上訴得直，案件發還予另一名法官重審。而上訴庭在判詞援引兩宗涉「司法抄襲」的案例，原審都是陳嘉信。 另外，上訴庭周三（14 日）審理一宗原審同為陳嘉信的案件時，再度質疑陳的判詞「廣泛整合律師陳詞」，表明對其判決只會「給予很少或不給予比重」。 司法機構周二（13 日）回覆查詢指，終院首席法官張舉能完全同意判詞不能抄襲，會對訴訟雙方不公平，亦會影響公眾對司法的信心。他與高等法院首席法官潘兆初，已對陳嘉信作出嚴肅訓誡，陳表示明白和同意。 全文：https://bit.ly/42F6VSo #wilsonchan #hongkongjudge #hongkongjudiciary #plagiarism #hongkong #hongkonglaw  Hong Kong Judge Wilson Chan Guilty of Plagiarism

Alexandra Chambers Barrister Hylas Chung Unprofessional, Harmed Others And Did Not Benefit Self, Utterly Should Never Be Encouraged Or Imitated (Said Judge Poon) 鍾元富大律師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 (法官潘敏琦說) 香港特別行政區 訴 袁郁鈞 [2007] 1 HKLRD 819 https://indemnitycosts.wordpress.com/2023/06/17/alexandra-chambers-barrister-hylas-chung-unprofessional-harmed-others-and-did-not-benefit-self-utterly-should-never-be-encouraged-or-imitated-said-judge-poon/

Barrister Leon Ho Useless - Lost His Arguments on Costs - Hong Kong Solicitor Chiu Kei Leung Ordered To Pay Indemnity Costs To Chui Deon Yau Han (香港律師趙基樑被命令賠償徐幼嫻按彌償基準計算的訟費) – Chiu Kei Leung v Chui Deon Yau Han [2023] HKDC 134 “I dismiss the Summons (ie Mr Yu’s primary position). I further dismiss the plaintiff’s action against the defendants and order the plaintiff to pay to the defendants the costs of the action (including any costs reserved) on an indemnity basis with a certification for two counsel to be taxed if not agreed.  In respect of the costs of the Summons, there is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The plaintiff only conceded to pay costs on an indemnity basis after the defendants had lodged their written submissions. As one might expect, Mr Yu (as trial counsel) made detailed submissions on the plaintiff’s litigation conduct to justify an order for indemnity costs. On a nisi basis, I order the plaintiff to pay to the defendants the costs of and occasione...

Barrister Abel Lam Useless - Lost Yet Another Case - Leung Chi Ching Candy v Yeung Hon Sing [2025] HKDC 197 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=166677&currpage=T

Barrister C Y Li SC Absurd 李秋源資深大律師陳詞荒謬 - CWG v MH [2014] 1 HKLRD 838 (§16)  http://joycekwan20130602. blogspot.com/2014/01/ barrister-li-chau-yuen-senior- counsel-c-y-li-sc-absurd.html? m=1  

DVC Barrister Sakinah Sat Misled the Court Says Judge 法官話薩忻琪大律師誤導法庭 [2020] HKCFI 2288 (§13) https://lawyersinhk.blogspot.com/2020/11/dvc-barrister-sakinah-sat-misled-the-court.html?m=1 

Barrister Robin Egerton Sued For Negligence - By Mark Sutherland - HCA 730/2023 -  https://www.rollonfriday. com/news-content/exclusive- barrister-who-made-his- clients-accuser-measure-her- bum-sues-his-own-lawyers  - Sutherland is suing Hong Kong Law Firm Hampton Winter & Glynn Solicitors (HWG), Barristers Peter Barnes & Robin Egerton, and CRB Family Law Solicitors’ Jain Brown For Gross Professional Negligence.

梁家傑資深大律師鼓吹暴力違反大律師守則 Barrister Alan Leong SC Deplorable  http://paper.wenweipo.com/ 2019/07/25/YO1907250013.htm 蘇子冠去信大律師公會投訴梁家傑資深大律師鼓吹暴力違反大律師公 會專業守則 Barrister Alan Leong SC Deplorable https://orientaldaily.on.cc/ cnt/news/20190724/mobile/odn- 20190724-0724_00176_027.html

DoJ Prosecutor Ms Moonar Tsoi Cried Uncontrollably in Court and Caused Multiple Adjournments - 香港律政司檢控官於庭上嚎啕大哭引致數度休庭 - 香港特別行政區 訴 LWH (29/09/2025, DCCC1091/2023) [2025] HKDC 1561  https://legalref.judiciary. hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=172905&currpage=T 85.  控方結案時，本席曾要求主控官作陳詞，根據法律原則， 法庭應如何處理控方證供的分歧。主控官不但沒有協助法庭， 還於庭上嚎啕大哭，引致本席須數度休庭，還聲稱沒有服藥， 突然拿出藥物於庭上服食，行為絕對不專業，令人咋舌。 本席下令將本裁決的副本抄送予律政司司長作跟進。

Prince’s Chambers Barrister Julian Chan  Misconduct  Convicted (2025)

鄭明斌大律師專業失當罪成 Barrister Francis Cheng  Misconduct  Convicted (Bar Circular 115/2025) https://www.hk01.com/社會新聞/60268434/未助販毒案被告復原關鍵證據-大律師鄭明斌專業失當停牌三個月?utm_source=01webshare&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=non_native

鄧明輝事務律師遲找大律師費用俾香港律師會釘牌吊銷執業資格十二個月 !  點解會有事務律師唔找或者遲找大律師嘅費用咁低能？會俾香港律師會釘牌嗰喎！ Not paying Counsel's Fees or being late in paying Barristers is a serious act of misconduct punishable by suspension from practice! December 2012 - Disciplinary Decisions - Tang Ming Fai, Joseph (the Respondent) • Principles 6.04, 12.04 and 12.05 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Volume 1 (“the Guide”) http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent

Barrister James McGowan of Admiralty Chambers Admitted Misconduct in HKSAR v Apelete [2019] 5 HKLRD 574 [2019] HKCA 1189 https://jamesmcgowan2023.blogspot.com/2023/03/barrister-james-mcgowan-admiralty-chambers-hong-kong-admitted-misconduct.html https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=125051&currpage=T 36. Before us, Mr McGowan candidly admitted that his actions (or lack thereof) were such as to bring him within the meaning of s.18 of the CCCO. In particular, he accepted that on his part there had been undue delay as well as a repeated failure to comply with the Court's directions, which amounted to serious professional misconduct. 47.  Whatever the position may have been in respect of funding, the applicant was legally aided as from 17 August 2018. There can be no excuse for either Mr Mohnani or Mr McGowan failing to comply with the Court's directions thereafter and no conceivable justification for allowing 7 months to go by from 12 September 2018 (the...

Hong Kong Law Firm Bowers  Negligent - Defamation Pleading Drafted By Bowers Solicitors Seriously Defective - Poon Wong Yee See (黃綺施) v Lo Sau Woon Diana (盧秀媛) [2023] HKCFI 2188 (Judge MK Liu - 21 August 2023) - 狀紙都唔識寫點解可以開律師樓?  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=154538&currpage=T

Stupid Barrister Roy Chui of Garden Chambers Took Photos in Court! 徐曉峯大律師犯法喺法庭入面影相真弱智! 徐曉峯大律師犯法喺法庭入面影相再放上自己 Facebook 真弱智! Lawyer Counsel Barrister Roy Chui of Garden Chambers Hong Kong committed a crime by taking photos inside court and uploading them to his own Facebook page he’s such an idiot! http://chuihiufungroytookphotosincourt.blogspot.com/2018/07/university-of-liverpool-law-student-chui-hiu-fung-roy-took-photos-in-court.html?m=1 Arrogant Ignorant Childish Summer Student Roy Chui (Chui Hiu Fung Roy) Took Photos in Court - 張健利大律師行實習生徐曉峯法庭入面影相涉違法超低能! 法庭入面唔俾影相㗎! 弱智嘅人先會喺法庭入面影相然後自己放上網㗎! 張健利大律師行實習 庭內影相 法律生涉違法 人類總要重複同樣的錯誤。一名19歲法律系學生，本月初開始跟隨張健利大律師行（Denis Chang's Chambers）的大律師當暑期實習，最少兩度在區域法院和高等法院法庭內拍照，涉嫌違法。他卻把照片上載facebook在網上瘋傳。網民嘲諷知法犯法，揶揄「要威就要付出代價」，並稱已報警，可謂「呃like呃出禍」。 涉事暑期實習生徐曉峯（譯音），據其facebook資料顯示，他就讀於英國利物浦大學，本月初加入張健利大律師行成為暑期實習生。高登討論區前天出現一張「打卡」截圖，顯示他當天身處高等法院，照片是法庭內部，桌面放有律師假髮，座椅上放着律師袍，估計是律師座位，圖片還附帶一句「One day I will wear these and do justice（終有一天我會穿起這些，主持公義）」；及後再有網民發現，徐上周已曾在灣仔區域法院拍攝庭內情...

Solicitor Tracy Lam (Lam Yuen Ying) Prosecuted For A Serious Crime -  女被告林宛瑩為律師 - FLCC2148/2025 -  一名 54 歲男警被指於 2023 年 11 月，串謀他人販運大麻及傷害他人，亦涉令一名警長收指示， 銷毀針對他的刑事調查。男警被控「串謀販運危險藥物」、「 串謀傷人」、「妨礙司法公正」3 罪 。另外兩涉案男女則被控「妨礙司法公正」罪，分成 3 案周一（29 日）在粉嶺裁判法院再訊。根據控罪書，女被告林宛瑩為律師 - FLCC2148/2025 -  https://thewitnesshk.com/ 男警涉串謀販毒及傷人令同袍銷毀調查資料-還押待/

嚴康焯大律師濫用法律程序不可以接受 Barrister Foster Yim Unacceptable Abuse Of Process - 深圳市深超科技投資有限公司 v 世紀晶源科技有限公司 [2025] HKCA 551 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS =169860&currpage=T Kwan VP: -  8.  In his submissions for the applicant in this appeal, Mr Foster Yim repeated arguments that have been ruled against him in the CA Judgment, mounted direct and collateral attacks on the Set Aside Decision for which leave to appeal was refused in the Refusal of Leave Decision, advanced arguments that are outside the scope of the remaining ground of appeal being Ground 5, and sought orders that are not mentioned in the notice of appeal. It is unacceptable for counsel to make submissions on appeal in this manner.