[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
the material time as an Advocate and Solicitor, the services he rendered did
not relate directly to the administration of justice in this jurisdiction. The sole
charge proceeded with by the Law Society against the Respondent was one of
entering into a champertous agreement which provided for payment to the
Respondent of either 30% or 40% of the amount recovered in respect of his
client’s claim for personal injuries (the actual percentage payable to the
Respondent would depend on the amount recovered). It was alleged that the
Respondent’s conduct was in breach of s 107(1)(b) read with s 107(3) of the
Act and that this amounted to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his
professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Act.
3 The Respondent (in our view, correctly) admitted to the charge before
the Disciplinary Tribunal. The sole issue before us was that of sentence. After
hearing the parties, we ordered that the Respondent be suspended from
practice for a period of six months and further that he pay the agreed or taxed
costs of the proceedings. As this is the first time in more than thirty years that
a lawyer here has been charged and convicted of misconduct arising out of a
champertous arrangement, we thought that it would be appropriate for us to
explain the grounds for our decision.
Facts
4 The facts were not in dispute. An agreed statement of facts was
tendered at the hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal and it was supplemented
by affidavits filed by the parties.
5 The Respondent was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor in 1998. At
the material time he was the sole proprietor of the firm known as Kuru & Co.
2