Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh: Disciplinary Action for Fee Sharing with Unqualified Person
In The Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society to make absolute an order requiring Lee Cheong Hoh to show cause for disciplinary action under the Legal Profession Act. The misconduct involved Lee sharing professional fees with an unqualified person. The court ordered a three-year suspension from practice, finding that Lee's payments to an employee constituted a commission or gratification for procuring business, violating the Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order absolute and determined that he should be punished with a penalty of suspension from practice for three years.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Solicitor Lee Cheong Hoh faced disciplinary action for sharing fees with an unqualified person, violating the Legal Profession Act. The court imposed a three-year suspension.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Won | Won | |
| Lee Cheong Hoh | Respondent | Individual | Suspension from practice for three years | 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 |
|---|---|
| Simon Yuen | Tan & Lim |
| Michael Khoo | Michael Khoo & Partners |
4. Facts
- Lee Cheong Hoh, a solicitor, engaged Raymond Mark, previously a clerk, to join his firm.
- Mark's employment terms included a 10% payment of fees collected on third-party claims.
- Mark brought approximately 50 clients and 200 pending files from his previous employer.
- The firm's billings on third-party claims significantly increased after Mark joined.
- Mark was paid more than other professional staff in the firm.
- Upon Mark's departure, the firm lost about 50% of its workshop clients and files.
- Mark was later convicted of corruption, forgery, and cheating.
5. Formal Citations
- The Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh, OS 1621/2000, [2001] SGHC 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lee Cheong Hoh went into private practice. | |
| Lee Cheong Hoh met Raymond Mark. | |
| Raymond Mark joined Cheong Hoh & Associates. | |
| Mark made his first claim for the 10% payment. | |
| Mark gave notice of resignation. | |
| Mark made a complaint to the Law Society. | |
| Case filed: OS 1621/2000 | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Sharing of professional fees with unqualified person
- Outcome: The court found that the solicitor's payments to an employee constituted a commission or gratification for procuring business, violating the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Payment constituting gratification or commission
- Procuring employment of legal business
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary action against the solicitor
- Suspension from practice
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the objectives of imposing penalties against errant advocates and solicitors. |
| Re an Advocate & Solicitor | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1978-1979] SLR 240 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the seriousness of a charge under section 83(2)(e) of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Re an Advocate & Solicitor | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1978] 2 MLJ 7 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the seriousness of a charge under section 83(2)(e) of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 215 | Singapore | Cited as a case dealing with similar misconduct of paying a commission for procuring legal work, and to determine the appropriate penalty. |
| Galloway v Corporation of London | Court of Equity | Yes | [1867] LR 4 Eq 90 | England | Cited by the defense to argue that an agreement to remunerate staff based on the amount of work done does not contravene the Legal Profession Act, but distinguished by the court. |
| Harper v Eyjolfsson | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1914] 2 KB 411 | England | Cited by the defense to argue that an agreement to remunerate staff based on the amount of work done does not contravene the Legal Profession Act, but distinguished by the court. |
| Lake v Bartlett & Gluckstein | High Court | Yes | [1921] 37 TLR 316 | England | Cited by the defense to argue that an agreement to remunerate staff based on the amount of work done does not contravene the Legal Profession Act, but distinguished by the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 39 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(d) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(e) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
| s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Professional fees
- Gratification
- Commission
- Unqualified person
- Touting
- Disciplinary action
- Show cause
- Legal Profession Act
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Fee Sharing
- Disciplinary Action
- Solicitor
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Touting | 70 |
| Professional Ethics | 50 |
| Professional Discipline | 40 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Misconduct