Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing: Disciplinary Proceedings for Grossly Improper Conduct
In Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by the Law Society to make absolute an order to show cause against Ng Chee Sing, a solicitor, for grossly improper conduct and conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. The charges stemmed from Ng's involvement in mortgage transactions where he acted for both the purchasers/mortgagors and the mortgagee, Public Finance Co Ltd, without disclosing his personal interest in the transactions. The court found Ng guilty on all charges and ordered him to be struck off the rolls.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order accordingly.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Disciplinary proceedings against Ng Chee Sing for grossly improper conduct and conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. The court ordered him to be struck off the rolls.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Order for Ng Chee Sing to be struck off the rolls | Won | Mohan R Pillay, Emiley Yeow |
| Ng Chee Sing | Respondent | Individual | Struck off the rolls | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohan R Pillay | Wong Partnership |
| Emiley Yeow | Wong Partnership |
4. Facts
- Ng Chee Sing acted for both purchasers/mortgagors and mortgagee (Public Finance) in mortgage loan grants.
- Ng Chee Sing did not disclose to Public Finance that the mortgagors were his nominees.
- Ng Chee Sing did not disclose that part of the mortgage loans would be used for his and Tarun Jain's investments.
- The first legal mortgages were not registered in the Land Titles Registry.
- Ng Chee Sing failed to respond promptly to queries from Public Finance.
- Ng Chee Sing failed to safeguard and account for the mortgage loans disbursed to him.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing, OS 1778/1999, [2000] SGHC 35
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ng Chee Sing admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. | |
| Ng Chee Sing made a partner in the firm of Billy Ng Chua & Partners (BNCP). | |
| Tarun Jain sought the respondent`s advice on how to raise funds for his business activities. | |
| Ng Chee Sing approached Foo Beng Wai and Chan Kok Fai to purchase properties from Tarun Jain. | |
| Public Finance issued letters of offer for the mortgage loans to the two mortgagors. | |
| Mortgage documents were signed by Public Finance and the first mortgagor and the second mortgagor respectively. | |
| Caveats were lodged by BNCP against the first and second mortgaged properties. | |
| Public Finance disbursed the first mortgage loan. | |
| BNCP advised Public Finance to release the second mortgage loan. | |
| Public Finance disbursed the second mortgage loan. | |
| Ng Chee Sing used S$1,088,687.51 for loans to other persons. | |
| Public Finance inquired about the status of the mortgages. | |
| BNCP gave notices of redemption for the first and second mortgaged properties. | |
| Public Finance received a letter from PK Wong & Advani regarding the caveats. | |
| BNCP replied to PK Wong & Advani on behalf of Public Finance. | |
| Public Finance wrote to Ng Chee Sing and his assistant inquiring on the status of the registration. | |
| Public Finance instructed Piah Tan & Partners (PTP) to obtain the relevant documents for registration from BCNP. | |
| PTP asked BNCP to forward the relevant documents to them for the registration of the mortgages. | |
| BNCP only forwarded the duplicate Subsidiary Strata Certificates of Title relating to the two mortgaged properties without any cover letter to PTP. | |
| BNCP wrote to PTP stating that they were `in the process of getting all the documents` requested. | |
| PTP wrote to BNCP reminding them to forward the documents and furnish an explanation for the non-registration of the mortgages. | |
| PTP repeated requests to BNCP. | |
| PTP repeated requests to BNCP. | |
| PTP repeated requests to BNCP. | |
| BNCP wrote to PTP apologising for the delay and stating that they were still trying to obtain their clients` instructions. | |
| BNCP wrote to Public Finance and asked for Public Finance`s redemption statement in exchange for certificates of title. | |
| PTP sought an explanation from BNCP as to why BNCP required Public Finance`s redemption statement. | |
| BNCP wrote directly to Public Finance again asking for the redemption statement. | |
| PTP gave BNCP a final reminder to hand over all the requested documents by 30 November 1998. | |
| BNCP replied asking PTP to hold matters in abeyance as their clients intended to redeem the mortgages by 30 December 1996. | |
| PTP wrote to BNCP stating that their clients were agreeable to the proposed redemption date of 30 December 1996. | |
| PTP wrote to BNCP demanding the return of all the documents. | |
| PTP learnt from the vendors` solicitors that the sale of the properties had allegedly not been completed. | |
| PTP wrote to BNCP asking that they account for the loan sums disbursed by Public Finance to BNCP in respect of both properties. | |
| PTP wrote to BNCP demanding the return of the loan sums that had been released to them. | |
| BNCP wrote to PTP stating that their clients would be redeeming the loans by the first week of April 1997. | |
| PTP replied to BNCP stating that the demand was directed at BNCP as opposed to BNCP`s clients. | |
| Ng Chee Sing left the firm on 27 March 1997. | |
| Public Finance commenced Suit Nos 1068/97 and 1069/97 against the respondent and Tarun Jain. | |
| Ng Chee Sing was made a bankrupt in April 1998. | |
| Hearing before the Disciplinary Committee. | |
| Ng Chee Sing put forward written submissions. | |
| Order to show cause made against Ng Chee Sing by Kan Ting Chiu J. | |
| Law Society obtained an order for substituted service. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Grossly improper conduct
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties.
- Category: Substantive
- Conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Principles of disciplinary sentencing
- Outcome: The court applied the principles of disciplinary sentencing in determining the appropriate penalty.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to show cause to be made absolute
- Disciplinary action against the respondent
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of professional duty
- Grossly improper conduct
- Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Marshall David; Law Society of Singapore v Marshall David Saul | Unknown | Yes | [1972] 2 MLJ 221 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'grossly improper conduct' as conduct dishonourable to the respondent and his profession. |
| Re Han Ngiap Juan | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited for applying the definition of 'grossly improper conduct'. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 361 | Singapore | Cited for applying the definition of 'grossly improper conduct' and for the principle that grossly improper conduct occurs when a solicitor puts his interests above his client's. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 845 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that grossly improper conduct occurs where a solicitor puts his interests above that of his clients and for stating that conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor is not confined to misconduct in the solicitor's professional capacity but also extends to misconduct in the solicitor's personal capacity. |
| Re Weare | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1893] 2 QB 439 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a solicitor need only be shown to have been guilty of such conduct as would render him unfit to remain as a member of an honourable profession. |
| Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of Accountants | Unknown | Yes | [1989] SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the analysis of what amounts to conduct discreditable to an accountant as opposed to misconduct in a professional respect. |
| Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of Accountants | Unknown | Yes | [1990] 1 MLJ 456 | Singapore | Cited for the analysis of what amounts to conduct discreditable to an accountant as opposed to misconduct in a professional respect. |
| Mercer v Pharmacy Board of Victoria | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1968] VR 72 | Australia | Cited for the observation that conduct discreditable to a pharmaceutical chemist need not be dishonest or fraudulent, or involve moral turpitude. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the standard of judgment to be applied to the solicitor's misconduct under s 83(2)(h) is a standard fixed by the court and not the standard of peer judgment. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on disciplinary sentencing and the public dimension of disciplinary sentencing. |
| Bolton v Law Society | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 All ER 486 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles on disciplinary sentencing, including striking off for dishonesty or falling below required standards of integrity. |
| Law Society of Singapore v VCS Vardan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 229 | Singapore | Cited for the issue of mitigation in disciplinary proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 93(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Grossly improper conduct
- Conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
- Mortgage loans
- Professional duty
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Nominees
- Mortgage registration
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Singapore
- Mortgage
- Solicitor
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Regulatory Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings