Law Society v Bay Puay Joo Lilian: Lawyer Touting & Referral Fees
In Law Society of Singapore v Bay Puay Joo Lilian, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society for Bay Puay Joo Lilian, an advocate and solicitor, to show cause as to why she should not be disciplined for attempting to procure conveyancing work by offering referral fees, contravening the Legal Profession Act. The Law Society's application was prompted by the decision of this court in Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye Dave. The court found Bay Puay Joo Lilian guilty and ordered a nine-month suspension from practice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Show cause order made absolute; respondent suspended from practice for nine months.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Law Society v Bay Puay Joo Lilian: Lawyer disciplined for attempting to procure conveyancing work by offering referral fees. Show cause order made absolute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Show cause order made absolute | Won | |
| Bay Puay Joo Lilian | Respondent | Individual | Suspended from practice for nine months | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Ang | Judge | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Law Society brought an application for Bay Puay Joo Lilian to show cause why she should not be dealt with under the Legal Profession Act.
- The respondent was charged with contravening s 83(2)(e) and/or s 83(2)(h) of the Act.
- The respondent attempted to procure employment by offering to pay Jenny Lee a referral fee for conveyancing work.
- Jenny Lee was a private investigator engaged to investigate law firms suspected of touting for conveyancing work.
- The Disciplinary Committee found the respondent guilty of the amended charge but concluded that the misconduct was not of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 83 of the Act.
- The Law Society disagreed with the Disciplinary Committee’s conclusion on the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct and filed an application under s 94(3)(b) of the Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Bay Puay Joo Lilian, OS 2298/2006, SUM 295/2007, [2007] SGHC 208
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jenny Lee engaged by Dong Security & Investigation Agency to investigate law firms touting for conveyancing work. | |
| Jenny Lee telephoned the respondent claiming to be a real estate agent. | |
| Jenny Lee met with the respondent at the firm’s premises. | |
| Jenny Lee's statutory declaration. | |
| Disciplinary Committee convened to hear complaints against the respondent. | |
| Disciplinary Committee Report issued. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Touting
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of attempting to procure employment by offering referral fees.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the evidence obtained by Jenny was admissible.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 3 SLR 922
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 207 | Singapore | Cited as the first disciplinary case arising from sting operations designed to obtain evidence of touting. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 42 | Singapore | Cited as an appeal to the Court of Appeal arising out of an application for leave for judicial review based on similar facts. |
| SM Summit Holdings Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of excluding illegally obtained evidence where the unlawful conduct constitutes an essential ingredient of the charged offence. |
| Regina v Sang | House of Lords | Yes | [1980] AC 402 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that illegally obtained evidence is generally admissible except where its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value. |
| How Poh Sun v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 220 | Singapore | Cited for applying the principle in Regina v Sang. |
| Ridgeway v The Queen | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1995) 184 CLR 19 | Australia | Cited as the basis for the Summit exception. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 934 | Singapore | Cited as a case with facts 'on all fours' with the present case, where the High Court decided there was no reason for excluding evidence obtained in similar circumstances. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye Dave | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 581 | Singapore | Cited as the case that prompted the Law Society's application, where the advocate and solicitor was suspended from practice for six months on similar facts. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 215 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate penalty to impose on the respondent. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 80 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate penalty to impose on the respondent. |
| Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1975] QB 773 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'procure'. |
| R v Castiglione | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1963] NSWR 1 | Australia | Cited for the definition of 'procure'. |
| Chua Kian Kok v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 542 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the non-existence of the subject matter of an offence does not preclude an attempt to commit it. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(e) Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(h) Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 94(1) Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 98 Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 90 Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 94(3)(b) Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 83 Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 511 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 29 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 107 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Touting
- Referral Fees
- Conveyancing
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Committee
- Show Cause Order
15.2 Keywords
- Law Society
- Bay Puay Joo Lilian
- Touting
- Referral Fees
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Conveyancing | 70 |
| Touting | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Property Law | 20 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Misconduct