[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
having obtained independent legal advice, made a complaint under s 85(1) of
the Act against the Respondent.
Findings of the Inquiry Committee
18 An Inquiry Committee was constituted and heard the matter on 8 and
15 March 2012. The fact of the Champertous Agreement was not disputed, but
the Respondent’s defence was that he had been assisting the Complainant in
his personal capacity and not as an Advocate and Solicitor. On this basis, he
argued that s 107 of the Act and r 37 of the Legal Profession (Professional
Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed) (“the Professional Conduct
Rules”) did not apply to him or to his retainer by the Complainant.
19 The Inquiry Committee did not accept this defence. In its report dated
26 March 2013 14 it found that there was clear evidence that the Respondent
had breached the Act in carrying out work as an Advocate and Solicitor
pursuant to the Champertous Agreement, as seen in the following facts.
(a) The second Warrant to Act executed on the same day as the
Champertous Agreement was a document normally used for the
engagement of Advocates and Solicitors. It recited that the Respondent’s
firm and not the Respondent in his personal capacity had been engaged
to act for the Complainant. (It may be noted in passing that this was a
wholly meaningless distinction.)
(b) This Warrant to Act was drafted by the Respondent himself and
stated that his firm was to represent the Complainant in its capacity as a
14
RP vol 6 pp 1272–1278.
11