Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Committee

Pursuant to s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) (‘the Act’), the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee in The Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.

This summary is published pursuant to the requirements of s 93(5) of the Act.

In the matter of Low Yong Sen, an Advocate and Solicitor

1   Mr Low Yong Sen (‘the Respondent Solicitor’) faced five charges before the Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’).

2   The five charges were:

First Charge

That Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners on or about 9 November 2001 at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre Singapore 058357 did charge one Mr Ho Cheng Lay for acting for him as the Petitioner in Divorce Petition No 2685 of 1998 for work done by him as his solicitor for a fee of S$15,000.00 as evidenced by his Bill No YSL 2144/01 which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what he was entitled to charge for the services he rendered and such overcharging by him amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Second Charge

That Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners on or about 9 November 2001 at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre Singapore 058357 did charge one Mr Ho Cheng Lay for acting for him in Summons-in-Chambers Entered No 751220/2000, for work done by him as his solicitor for a fee of S$5,000.00 as evidenced by his Bill No YSL 2145/01 which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what he was entitled to charge for the services he rendered and such overcharging by him amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Third Charge

That Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners on or about 9 November 2001 at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre Singapore 058357 did charge one Mr Ho Cheng Lay for acting for him in Summons-in-Chambers Entered No 750799/2000 for work done by him as his solicitor for a fee of S$5,000.00 as evidenced by his Bill No YSL 2146/01 which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what he was entitled to charge for the services he rendered and such overcharging by him amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Fourth Charge

That Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners on or about 9 November 2001 at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre Singapore 058357 did charge one Mr Ho Cheng Lay for acting for him in DAC 27967/98, for work done by him as his solicitor for a fee of S$5,000.00 as evidenced by his Bill No YSL 2147/01 which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what he was entitled to charge for the services he rendered and such overcharging by him amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Fifth Charge

That Low Yong Sen of M/s Y S Low & Partners on or about 9 November 2001 at 101 Upper Cross Street #04-40 People’s Park Centre Singapore 058357 did charge one Mr Ho Cheng Lay for acting for him in Personal Protection Proceedings commenced against him in SS 1519/98 for work done by him as his solicitor for a fee of S$15,000.00 as evidenced by his Bill No YSL 2148/01 which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what he was entitled to charge for the services he rendered and such overcharging by him amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

3   The DC found that the contents and scope of the six Warrants to Act signed by the Complainant instructing the Respondent Solicitor to act for him in his Divorce proceedings, Personal Protection Order (‘PPO’) proceedings and a written mitigation plea in respect of proceedings in DAC 27967/1998 arising from PPO proceedings were not properly explained to the client before he had 
signed them.

4   In the Respondent Solicitor’s case, the Warrants to Act were prepared by his secretary and signed by the Complainant who was a Chinese-educated hawker and could not read English. The Warrants to Act contained legal terminology such as ‘non-refundable retainer fee’, ‘mitigation’ and ‘making representation’ which the DC found were not properly explained to the Complainant before he had signed the same. The DC had examined the circumstances under which the Warrants were signed in determining if the charges against Respondent Solicitor were made out by the Law Society.

5   The DC determined that the actual contents and the scope of the Warrants to Act were not properly explained to the Complainant. The DC also found that the Respondent Solicitor did not issue interim bills to the Complainant for over a period of three years. Instead, the Respondent Solicitor issued all his invoices at the end of three years and charged the Complainant the maximum amount in the range of fees set out in the Warrants to Act which amounted to $46,589 which represented 86.3 per cent of the Complainant’s share from the sale of his matrimonial flat.

6   The DC also heard evidence from two expert witnesses of the Law Society on the usual fees charged by lawyers for the type of work undertaken by the Respondent Solicitor and the evidence of the Respondent Solicitor. The DC determined that the Law Society had proved its case in respect of each of the 
five charges.

7   The DC found the conduct of the Respondent Solicitor to be reprehensible and improper but not of sufficient gravity to warrant a referral to the court of three judges. It recommended instead that the Respondent Solicitor be reprimanded for the first and last charges and ordered to pay a penalty of $7,500 each for the second, third and fourth charges and pay the Society costs fixed at $40,000.

8   The Council of the Law Society accepted and adopted the findings and determination of the DC and reprimanded the Respondent Solicitor and ordered the payment of a total penalty of $22,500 plus fixed costs at $40,000.