[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
76 Besides the criminal charges, Mui also faced disciplinary proceedings
before the Hong Kong Bar Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to four complaints.
Section 64(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) prohibits “any
agreement by which a solicitor retained or employed to prosecute any action,
suit or other contentious proceeding stipulates for payment only in the event of
success in that action, suit or proceeding.” Similarly, para 124 of the Hong
Kong Bar Association Code of Conduct states that “a barrister may not accept
a brief or instructions on terms that payment of fees shall depend upon or be
related to a contingency”. Of the four complaints faced by Mui, only the
second complaint had to do with entering into a contingency fee agreement. In
the event he was found guilty of three of the four complaints 23 including the
second complaint and was sentenced to six months’ suspension for each
complaint, 24 but these were to run concurrently. Mui appealed but the appeal
was dismissed: see Mui Kwok Keung Louie v The Bar Council [2011]
HKCA 63.
77 The foreign precedents featured sanctions that run the gamut from a
small fine to suspension and even to striking off. They therefore afford us
limited assistance.
78 In our view, the pith and substance of an offence under s 107 of the
Act is that the Advocate and Solicitor acquires an interest in the proceeds of
litigation. His ultimate remuneration depends not on the value of his efforts as
a lawyer but on the outcome of the litigation. We think it would be of little
23 http://www.hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/Statement%20of%20Findings%2020100408.pdf
24
(accessed on 15 July 2013)
http://www.hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/Reasons%20for%20Sentence%2020100428.pdf
(accessed on 15 July 2013)
40