Law Society v Low Yong Sen: Show Cause Action for Gross Overcharging and Failure to Disclose Interest
The Law Society of Singapore brought a show cause action against Low Yong Sen, a lawyer, for gross overcharging and failure to disclose interest in a conveyancing transaction. The High Court found Low Yong Sen guilty of gross overcharging, stemming from excessive disbursements charged to a client, and suspended him from practice for six months. The court ruled that he was not guilty of failing to disclose an interest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Respondent found guilty of gross overcharging and suspended from practice for six months.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Law Society's show cause action against Low Yong Sen for gross overcharging and failure to disclose interest in a conveyancing transaction, resulting in a six-month suspension.
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 action successful in part | Partial | |
| Low Yong Sen | Respondent | Individual | Suspension from practice | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Jee Ming | Tan Jee Ming & Partners |
| Srinivasan V N | Heng Leong & Srinivasan |
4. Facts
- Dr. Gao and Mdm Li engaged Low Yong Sen for a property purchase.
- Low Yong Sen rendered a bill for $27,990, including professional fees and disbursements.
- Dr. Gao complained about overcharging, alleging an agreed net fee of $2,000.
- Low Yong Sen refunded $2,526.13 for overcharged disbursements.
- Low Yong Sen engaged High Business Services (HBS), owned by his brother, for services.
- The disbursements charged were found to be far in excess of what was fair.
- The court found that Low Yong Sen benefited from the overcharging.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen, OS 352/2008, SUM 1565/2008, [2008] SGHC 170
- The Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen, , [2008] SGDC 3
- The Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen Vincent, , [2006] SGDSC 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Low Yong Sen admitted to the Singapore Bar. | |
| Michael Low Pong Seng started High Business Services. | |
| Low Yong Sen became the sole proprietor of M/s Y S Low & Partners. | |
| Michael Low Pong Seng transferred ownership of High Business Services. | |
| Dr. Gao and Mdm Li engaged Low Yong Sen for property purchase. | |
| Low Yong Sen rendered a bill to Dr. Gao and Mdm Li. | |
| Dr. Gao lodged a complaint with the Law Society. | |
| Hearing of the application commenced. | |
| Hearing of the application continued. | |
| High Court delivered its decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Gross Overcharging
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of gross overcharging, holding that the disbursements charged were far in excess and disproportionate to what he was entitled to charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Excessive professional fees
- Excessive disbursements
- Subterfuge to avoid questions
- Failure to Disclose Interest
- Outcome: The court found the respondent not guilty of failing to disclose an interest, interpreting the relevant rule as not applying to an interest in the fees charged.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
- Order to Show Cause
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Professional Conduct
- Gross Overcharging
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 3 | Singapore | The High Court refers to the Disciplinary Committee's decision to provide context and background to the charges against the respondent. |
| Re Han Ngiap Juan | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that not every case of overcharging constitutes grossly improper conduct and that the extent of overcharging is a strong factor. |
| Re Lau Liat Meng | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 203 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate the legal position regarding grossly improper conduct and the sanction imposed for exaggerating time spent on a client's matter. |
| Re A Solicitor | N/A | Yes | [1912] 1 KB 302 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'grossly improper conduct' as an act reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by professional brethren. |
| Rajasooria v Disciplinary Committee | N/A | Yes | [1955] 1 WLR 405 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the intention to deceive is not an essential element of grossly improper conduct. |
| Re Abdul Rahim Rajudin | N/A | Yes | [1988] SLR 907 | Singapore | Cited as an example where a solicitor was suspended for demanding unconscionable commissions and rendering an excessive bill. |
| Re Lim Kiap Khee | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 616 | Singapore | Cited as an example where a solicitor was struck off the roll for rendering bills of costs even though no services had been provided. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Subbiah Pillai | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 447 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a period of suspension will act as a general deterrent to other solicitors and thus protect public confidence in the legal profession. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen Vincent | N/A | Yes | [2006] SGDSC 3 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the respondent's previous misconduct of a similar nature, where five charges of overcharging were preferred against him. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 26(a) Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) |
| Rule 38 Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | 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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gross Overcharging
- Professional Misconduct
- Disbursements
- Legal Profession Act
- Professional Conduct Rules
- Show Cause Action
- Conflict of Interest
- Conveyancing Transaction
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Overcharging
- Disciplinary Action
- Singapore
- Law Society
- Suspension
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Gross overcharging | 95 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 85 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 80 |
| Professional Conduct Rules | 80 |
| Costs | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Overcharging
- Disciplinary Proceedings