[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
be correct. But it must be appreciated that the Respondent was engaged in
Singapore, by a Singaporean client, in his capacity as an Advocate and
Solicitor, albeit this was in order to assist his client to bring proceedings
abroad.
The appropriate sentence
69 In that light we return to the case at hand. We thought and both counsel
agreed that the two local precedents, Lau Liat Meng and Chan Chow Wang
were dated and of little assistance. In Lau Liat Meng, an Advocate and
Solicitor (“Lau”) acted for a father in a claim arising out of his son’s death.
Under the arrangement they reached, Lau was to receive 25% of damages
recovered. He was found guilty of champerty and was struck off the rolls. The
appeal to the Privy Council was allowed in part on grounds which are not
relevant here but the conviction, for entering into a champertous fee
agreement, stood, and the matter was remitted to the High Court to reconsider
the sentence. As Lau was the subject of later disciplinary proceedings he was
either not struck off the rolls in that instance or was subsequently reinstated
but the eventual outcome was not made known to us. In Chan Chow Wang, the
respondent (“Chan”), an Advocate and Solicitor, was charged with entering
into an agreement to deduct S$10 for every S$100 in damages awarded in a
personal injury action. There were two other charges for fraudulent conduct.
In the event Chan was found guilty of all three charges and was struck off the
rolls.
70 We did not find either case illuminating given the developments in
public policy in the four decades or so that have passed since those decisions.
Moreover, both cases were redolent of dishonesty which, as we have said, was
not the case here.
37