Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society: Professional Conduct, Overcharging & Legal Profession Act
In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore, the High Court addressed Anthony Wee's complaints against lawyer Lim Chor Pee regarding professional misconduct, including overcharging and prohibited borrowing transactions. The Law Society dismissed some complaints, leading Wee to file an originating summons. Prakash J. affirmed the Law Society's decision on some complaints but ordered a disciplinary committee to investigate the overcharging complaint, finding sufficient grounds for further inquiry.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The court affirmed the Law Society's determination on some complaints but ordered a disciplinary committee for the overcharging complaint.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Anthony Wee's complaint against lawyer Lim Chor Pee for overcharging and misconduct. The court orders disciplinary review for overcharging.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony | Plaintiff | Individual | Complaint Partially Upheld | Partial | |
| Law Society of Singapore | Defendant | Statutory Board | Determination Partially Affirmed | Partial | Jimmy Yim, Abraham Vergis, Daniel Chia |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jimmy Yim | Drew & Napier |
| Abraham Vergis | Drew & Napier |
| Daniel Chia | Drew & Napier |
4. Facts
- Mr. Wee engaged LCP to represent him in Suit 834, which was part-heard.
- LCP received personal loans from Mr. Wee while acting as his solicitor.
- Mr. Wee made loans to LCP's firm.
- Mr. Wee's claim in Suit 834 was dismissed, and his appeal was also dismissed.
- Mr. Wee discharged LCP as his solicitor.
- LCP sent Mr. Wee an invoice for $612,300 for work done on Suit 834.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed that there had been an agreement to cap fees at $275,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore, OS 8/2006, [2006] SGHC 214
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Wee sued UBS Ag in High Court Suit 834. | |
| Suit 834 was heard over 17 days. | |
| Mr. Wee engaged Mr. Lim Chor Pee to represent him in Suit 834. | |
| LCP received a personal loan of $20,000 from Mr. Wee. | |
| LCP received a personal loan of $8,500 from Mr. Wee. | |
| LCP received a personal loan of $39,000 from Mr. Wee. | |
| Mr. Wee made a loan of $75,000 to the firm. | |
| Trial recommenced and continued for 27 days. | |
| LCP received a personal loan of $16,500 from Mr. Wee. | |
| Mr. Wee made loans of $50,000 and $150,000 to the firm. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Mr. Wee made a loan of $32,000 to the firm. | |
| The firm paid Mr. Wee the first installment of $7000. | |
| Mr. Wee’s claim in Suit 834 was dismissed. | |
| Mr. Wee’s appeal against the decision was dismissed. | |
| Mr. Wee discharged LCP as his solicitor. | |
| Mr. Wee served LCP with two statutory demands. | |
| The firm sent Mr. Wee an invoice for work done on Suit 834 for $612,300. | |
| LCP applied to set aside the statutory demand. | |
| The statutory demand was set aside. | |
| LCP applied for a petition of course. | |
| Mr. Wee made four complaints to the Law Society against LCP. | |
| The petition of course was heard by the High Court. | |
| LCP applied to the Council pursuant to r 34(c). | |
| The IC issued its report. | |
| The IC issued a supplemental report. | |
| The Court of Appeal affirmed that there had been an agreement to cap fees at $275,000. | |
| The Council held a meeting to consider the IC’s report. | |
| The Council notified Mr. Wee of its decision. | |
| Mr. Wee filed the present originating summons. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Gross Overcharging
- Outcome: The court found that there were grounds to investigate whether LCP’s invoice for $612,300 was a gross overcharge and/or it was misconduct on the part of LCP to issue that invoice.
- Category: Substantive
- Prohibited Borrowing Transaction
- Outcome: The court found that the appeal procedure under s 96 of the Act is not available in this case, as the Council had exercised its discretion pursuant to r 34(c) to exempt the loans from the rigours of r 33.
- Category: Substantive
- Failure to Inform Client of Fees and Costs
- Outcome: The court endorsed the IC’s conclusion on this complaint as being patently correct.
- Category: Substantive
- Failure to Place Money in Fixed Deposit
- Outcome: The court accepted the IC’s recommendation that no formal investigation was required.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Investigation by Disciplinary Committee
- Review of Law Society's Decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Rules
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited to explain the role of the inquiry committee as merely to investigate the complaint and consider whether or not there was a prima facie case for a formal investigation. |
| Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 544 | Singapore | Endorsed the holding in Whitehouse that the role of the inquiry committee was merely to investigate the complaint and consider whether or not there was a prima facie case for a formal investigation. |
| Re Lau Liat Meng | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 203 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that solicitors rendering exorbitant or excessive bills lay themselves open to disciplinary action. |
| D’Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee | Supreme Court | Yes | (1995) 15 WAR 198 | Australia | Cited to explain the difference between legal rules governing the determination of costs payable to lawyers and the rule that excessive overcharging may be professional misconduct. |
| The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v Lardner and Andrews | Supreme Court | Yes | [1998] SCACT 24 | Australian Capital Territory | Cited for the principle that a costs agreement, even if legally valid, may result in excessive overcharging which in turn, may support a finding of professional misconduct. |
| Re Han Ngiap Juan | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the solicitor concerned had charged excessive fees and those charges were held to be so. |
| Re Abdul Rahim Rajudin | High Court | Yes | [1989] 1 MLJ 289 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court did not think that in the circumstances, the respondent was justified in rendering a bill for that amount, the court was of the opinion that it was improper conduct which fell short of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. |
| The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Timothy Meakes | New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal | Yes | [2006] NSWADT 67 | New South Wales | Cited for the principle that overcharges of approximately 60% and 40% respectively over and above the amounts assessed by the taxing master were held to be gross overcharging, and found that an overcharge of 66% was a gross overcharge. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 662 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court conducting a judicial review does not question the merits of the exercise of discretion and cannot substitute its own views as to how the discretion should be exercised for the course actually taken. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gross Overcharging
- Prohibited Borrowing Transaction
- Legal Profession Act
- Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
- Inquiry Committee
- Disciplinary Committee
- Council of the Law Society
- Fee Agreement
- Taxation of Costs
15.2 Keywords
- legal profession
- professional conduct
- overcharging
- borrowing transaction
- disciplinary action
- law society
- singapore
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Law Society Governance
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Civil Procedure