[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
25 The Law Society submitted that for the purposes of establishing an
appropriate benchmark, the Respondent’s offence could be compared to that
of overcharging. It was emphasised upon us that on the facts of this case, the
Respondent stood to gain more than ten times what he could possibly have
billed in the normal way in respect of professional fees. As to the appropriate
length of suspension, the Law Society said this should be substantial because
the Respondent had “audaciously entered” into the Champertous Agreement
and had taken deliberate, even dishonest, steps to enforce it. He had withheld
important documents from his client and had also refused to submit his bill in
a misguided attempt to delay the final computation of the Settlement Sum,
hoping that in the process the Complainant would come round and meet his
demands. The Law Society pointed to the following factors which it contended
aggravated the offence in this case:
(a) The Champertous Agreement was drafted with the manifest
aim of circumventing the prohibitions contained in the Act by devising a
structure that purported to take this engagement outside the scope of the
Respondent’s responsibilities as an Advocate and Solicitor;
(b) The Respondent’s 40% share of the Settlement Sum was a
much higher proportion and as it turned out, a far larger sum, than was
involved in either Chan Chow Wang or Lau Liat Meng;
(c) The Respondent took deliberate steps to enforce the
Champertous Agreement:
(i) For two months he had tried to delay the payment of the
Settlement Sum by withholding essential documents from the
Complainant;
15