SINGAPORE - Lawyer M. Ravi can continue practising law provided he commits to a medical regime more stringent than the current conditions stipulated in his practising certificate.
The decision came after a chamber hearing on Thursday morning, reported Channel NewsAsia.
A statement by the Singapore Law Society said that Mr Ravi's psychiatrist, Dr Munidasa Winslow, had submitted a detailed medical report on Nov 14 to the court and the Law Society.
The latest report, in contrast to the psychiatrist's earlier reports on July 25 and Oct 11, provided the Law Society information needed to address section 25C of the Legal Profession Act.
As a result, the society said that there was no further need for a medical report from an Institute of Mental Health specialist.
Dr Winslow said that Mr Ravi was fit to practise as long as the lawyer took his medication on a more strictly supervised basis.
His condition also had to be more constantly monitored by a physician.
Get The New Paper for more stories.
PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE LAW SOCIETY:
Dr Winslow submitted a detailed medical report of Mr M Ravi dated 14 November 2012 to the Court and the Law Society.
This report, in contrast to his earlier reports dated 25 July 2012 and 11 October 2012, substantially provides what the Law Society has been seeking to obtain in its section 25C application.
There is therefore no further need for the Law Society to ask for a medical report from a specialist from the IMH.
While we do not believe it necessary to go into the details of the medical report, in summary, Dr Winslow has confirmed what has never been in dispute i.e. that Mr Ravi has Bipolar Disorder.
Dr Winslow is of the view that Mr Ravi is currently fit to practise, subject to Mr Ravi taking his requisite medication on a more strictly supervised basis, and with more constant monitoring of his condition by his chosen physicians.
Dr Winslow has made some detailed and practical recommendations in this regard to ensure Mr Ravi continues to adhere to his medical regime. These recommendations are more extensive and stricter than the current conditions in his existing Practising Certificate ("PC").
Mr Ravi has informed the Court and the Law Society that he accepted and agreed to comply with all of Dr Winslow's recommendations.
The Law Society is of the view that the more extensive and stricter supervision regime best balances the interests of Mr Ravi, in allowing him to continue to practise, with the regulatory duty of the Law Society in ensuring that advocates and solicitors remain fit to practise. The Law Society accepts Dr Winslow's latest assessment and recommendations.
As such, the Law Society, at the hearing on 22 November 2012, sought further orders to the originating summons to impose amended and additional conditions to Mr Ravi's practicing certificate to incorporate Dr Winslow's recommendations, and making them applicable with immediate effect.