Section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)

In the Matter of YAP KOK KIONG and LINA ONG POH PWAY, Advocates & Solicitors

1. Mr Yap Kok Kiong was charged with 2 charges. Similarly, Ms Lina Ong Poh Pway was charged with 2 charges. The 2 charges against Mr Yap and the 2 charges against Ms Ong were identical. These charges were:-
   

Amended 1st Charge

That you ................ are guilty of such a breach of a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 1997 Edition)(the Act) as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act in that in or about September 1999, in the course of offering legal services to some or all of the owners of units in a housing estate known as Phoenix Mansions at Cairnhill Road, Singapore to act for them in a possible collective sale of all units in Phoenix Mansion you, in the document known as “Agreement for the Collective Sale of Phoenix Mansion”, offered to refund half of the legal fees paid by any owner for your services in connection with the said collective sale if you were engaged to act for that owner in any purchase of any new property within 6 months of completion of any collective sale, and you thereby contravened paragraph 2.4 of the Practice Direction of the Council dated 20 May 1996 entitled “Charging of legal fees in Property Transactions” which states that it is improper for solicitors to attract business by representing that a certain set or sets of fees will be waived as a matter of course and that more specifically, waivers would be considered improper where a scheme involving waivers is devised to attract the public to patronise a particular solicitor or firm of solicitors or where waivers are offered or deployed as a strategy or incentive directed at attracting prospective clients.

Second Charge

That you ..................... are guilty of failing to comply with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) such contravention warranting disciplinary action within the meaning of section 83(2)(j) of the Act in that you contravened section 109(2) of the Act when in or about September 1999, in the course of offering legal services to some or all the owners of units in a housing estate known as Phoenix Mansion at Cairnhill Road, Singapore to act for them in a possible collective sale of all units in Phoenix Mansion, you, in the document known as “Agreement for the Collective Sale of Phoenix Mansion”, offered to refund half of the legal fees paid by any owner for their services in connection with the said collective sale, if you were engaged to act for that owner in any purchase of any new property within 6 months of completion of any collective sale, and thereby agreed to provide for costs at a scale lower than that provided by the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Remuneration) Order.

2. By agreement of all parties, the hearing proceeded on affidavit evidence. The facts were not in dispute.
   
   
   
3. The Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) found that the offer by the Respondents to refund half of the legal fees paid by the owner in the collective sale if the Respondents were engaged to act for that owner in the purchase of a new property within 6 months from completion was directed at attracting business to the Respondents’ law firm — firstly, in relation to the Sales Committee, and secondly, in relation to the unit owners who wished to purchase new properties after the collective sale. The DC also found that the offer to refund half of the legal fees paid by the unit owners who were to engage the Respondents in the purchase of new properties amounted to charging less than scale fees. The DC accordingly found the said charges proved against each of the Respondents respectively.
   
   
   
4. However, the DC felt that there were extenuating circumstances — the state of mind of the Respondents; their remorse; the physical condition of the Respondent, Ms Ong at the material time; loosening up of regulations governing the profession, liberalising of the economy directly affecting the profession. The DC concluded that while the matter involved a breach of the Practice Directions and the Order, there were extenuating circumstances and felt that the conduct of the Respondents were not such that disciplinary action was called for.
   
   
   
5. In the circumstances, the DC found that no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act and that the case would be met by a reprimand under section 93(1)b of the Act. Having so determined, the DC ordered that the Respondents pay a sum of $10,000 (of which the Respondent, Mr Yap was to pay $7,000 and the Respondent, Ms Ong was to pay $3,000) as a reasonable contribution to the cost of the Law Society pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act.

In the Matter of CHUNG KOK SOON, an Advocate & Solicitor.

1. Mr Chung Kok Soon (‘Respondent’) was charged with the following 3 charges:
   

First Charge

That Chung Kok Soon is guilty of misconduct unbefitting an Advocate & Solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Second Charge

That Chung Kok Soon is guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that some time in the last week of August 1998 he failed to comply with the provisions of rule 35(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 1998 in not informing Cheng Chiau Ning, who was at all material times his client, the basis on which fees for his professional services will be charged and the manner in which it is expected that those fees and disbursements, if any, shall be paid by the client.

Third Charge

That Chung Kok Soon is guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that some time in the last week of August 1998 he failed to comply with rule 36 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 1998, that is, in not complying with the requirement that an advocate and solicitor shall, at the outset of a contentious matter and at appropriate stages thereafter, explain to the client that in any event the client shall be personally responsible for payment of his own solicitor and client bill of costs in full regardless of any order for costs made against the opponent.

2. The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) heard the evidence of Cheng Chiau Ning and the Respondent.
   
   
   
3. On the First Charge, the DC found that it could not stand.
   
   
   
4. On the Second and Third Charges, the DC found that there had been technical breaches of the Professional Conduct Rules and that the Second and Third Charges had been made out. The DC recommended that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action, the Respondent should be:
   

4.1. reprimanded; and

4.2. ordered to pay the costs of the Law Society.

In the matter of ARUL, ANDRE RAVINDRAN, an Advocate & Solicitor.

1.  Mr Arul, Andre Ravindran (‘Respondent’) was charged with the following 3 charges:
   

First Charge

That you, Arul, Andre Ravindran S, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty, as provided by section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that on 11 November 1999, you did without the authority of instructions of your client, Jane Rebecca Ong, instituted [sic] garnishee proceedings in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against Overseas Union Bank in the total sum of S$104,213 with accruing interest by way of Ex-parte Summons in Chambers entered No 6935 of 1999.

Second Charge

That you, Arul, Andre Ravindran S, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty, as provided by section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that on 11 November 1999, you did without the authority of instructions of your client, Jane Rebecca Ong, instituted garnishee proceedings in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against Thio Su Mien & Partners in the total sum of S$104,213 with accruing interest by way of Ex-parte Summons in Chambers entered No 6936 of 1999.

Third Charge

That you, Arul, Andre Ravindran S, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty as provided by section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) in that on 11 November 1999, you did, without the authority of instructions of your client, Jane Rebecca Ong, instituted [sic] garnishee proceedings in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against Thio Su Mien & Partners in the total sum of S$117,897.24 with accruing interest by way of Ex-parte Summons in Chambers entered No 6937 of 1999.

2. The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) heard the evidence of Jane Rebecca Ong and the Respondent.
   
   
3. After hearing and investigating the matter referred to them, the DC finds that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).