Law Society v Quan Chee Seng: Disciplinary Action for Grossly Improper Conduct
In Law Society of Singapore v Quan Chee Seng Michael, the High Court of Singapore considered an application by the Law Society of Singapore to make absolute an order to show cause against Michael Quan Chee Seng, a solicitor, for grossly improper conduct and contravention of the Legal Profession Act. The Law Society alleged that Quan failed to protect his clients' interests in the sale of their HDB flat and wrongfully disbursed the proceeds. The court found Quan guilty of all four charges brought against him and ordered that he be struck off the rolls.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order to show cause made absolute; Quan ordered to be struck off the rolls.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society sought disciplinary action against Quan Chee Seng for grossly improper conduct in handling client funds and prioritizing lender interests. The court ordered Quan 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 | Application granted | Won | Suressh Surenthiraraj of Law Society Howard Cheam of Law Society |
| Quan Chee Seng Michael | Respondent | Individual | Order to show cause made absolute | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Suressh Surenthiraraj | Law Society |
| Howard Cheam | Law Society |
4. Facts
- Quan acted for the Complainants in the sale of their HDB flat.
- Complainants needed cash and sought a loan pending the sale of their flat.
- Complainants were introduced to Assets Credit Pte Ltd, a licensed moneylender.
- Complainants signed a Letter of Authority authorizing Quan to act for them.
- Quan withdrew $138,895.16 in cash from the client account.
- Quan made payments to Assets and Corin from the proceeds.
- Complainants signed documents acknowledging receipt of the full sum, which was inaccurate.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Quan Chee Seng Michael, OS 1774/2002, [2003] SGHC 140
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Quan admitted to the Bar | |
| Complainants met Quan and signed a Letter of Authority | |
| Assets Credit Pte Ltd entered a caveat against the flat | |
| Flat sold and proceeds disbursed | |
| Law Society initiated show cause action (OS 1774/2002) | |
| High Court ordered Quan to be struck off the rolls |
7. Legal Issues
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Outcome: The court found that Quan's conduct was grossly improper and dishonest.
- Category: Substantive
- Contravention of Legal Profession Act
- Outcome: The court found that Quan contravened provisions of the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Solicitors’ Accounts Rules
- Outcome: The court found that Quan made unauthorised withdrawals from the client’s account.
- Category: Substantive
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The court found that Quan acted in the interests of the lenders rather than his clients.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Striking Off
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Professional Duty
- Violation 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clark v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1919] SC (HL) 35 | Scotland | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb the assessment of a judge who has observed the witnesses, unless plainly wrong. |
| Peh Eng Leng v Pek Eng Leong | Singapore Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 305 | Singapore | Applied the principle from Clark v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd regarding the assessment of witness credibility by a lower court. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | Singapore Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the considerations to bear in mind when deciding the appropriate penalty for a solicitor's misconduct, specifically whether to suspend or strike off. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession [Solicitors’ Accounts] Rules |
| Rules 7(1) and 8 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules |
| Rule 25(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules |
| Order 35, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) s 83(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) s 83(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) s 83(2)(j) | Singapore |
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Show cause
- Grossly improper conduct
- Solicitor
- Client account
- Moneylenders Act
- Letter of Authority
- Disciplinary Committee
- Professional misconduct
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession Act
- Solicitors' Accounts Rules
- Professional Misconduct
- Disciplinary Action
- Show Cause
- Conflict of Interest
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 80 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 75 |
| Professional Misconduct | 70 |
| Money and moneylenders | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Solicitors' Conduct