Law Society of Singapore v Andre Arul: Disciplinary Action for Gross Overcharging
In Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society concerning Andre Arul, who was found guilty of grossly overcharging his client, MCST 1886. The court imposed a fine of $50,000 and censured Arul, emphasizing the importance of fair billing practices and the integrity of the legal profession. The court considered the absence of dishonesty but highlighted the excessive charges compared to the actual work done.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The Respondent was fined $50,000 and censured for gross overcharging.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed disciplinary action against Andre Arul for grossly overcharging a client, emphasizing the importance of fair billing practices.
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 | Philip Fong, Vikneswari d/o Muthiah |
| Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul | Respondent | Individual | Sanctioned | Lost | Francis Xavier, Mohammed Reza, Avinash Pradhan, Shashi Nathan, Tania Chin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | 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 |
|---|---|
| Philip Fong | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Vikneswari d/o Muthiah | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Francis Xavier | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Mohammed Reza | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Avinash Pradhan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Shashi Nathan | Inca Law LLC |
| Tania Chin | Inca Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The Respondent charged MCST 1886 a total fee of $226,308.12 for work done.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of overcharging.
- The Respondent accepted the Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision on the amended primary charge.
- The Respondent did not offer to have his bills taxed.
- The Law Society’s expert witness assessed a reasonable fee to be around $75,000.
- The Respondent employed a paralegal, Kho, and charged $350 per hour for his work.
- MCST 1886 discharged the Respondent due to slow progress and high charges.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul, Originating Summons No 170 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 224
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Chew Swee Siong confessed to misappropriating funds. | |
| Respondent recommended to Mr. Hassan. | |
| MCST 1886 signed the Respondent’s warrant to act. | |
| Respondent rendered first bill to MCST 1886. | |
| MCST 1886 discharged the Respondent as its solicitor. | |
| Respondent rendered ninth bill to MCST 1886. | |
| MCST 1886 complained to the Law Society. | |
| Mr Hassan’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief was dated. | |
| DT hearing began. | |
| DT hearing concluded. | |
| Respondent’s oral outline was dated. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Gross Overcharging
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of gross overcharging.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] SGDT 2
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 186
- [1993] 1 SLR(R) 135
- [2009] 1 SLR(R) 802
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Fine
- Censure
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
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 Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2011] SGDT 2 | Singapore | The judgment refers to the findings of the disciplinary tribunal regarding the Respondent's guilt of overcharging. |
| Re Lau Liat Meng | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 186 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where a solicitor was suspended for gross overcharging, but reconsidered in light of the new punishment regime under the LPA. |
| Re Han Ngiap Juan | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where a solicitor was suspended for gross overcharging, but reconsidered in light of the new punishment regime under the LPA. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 802 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where a solicitor was suspended for gross overcharging, but reconsidered in light of the new punishment regime under the LPA. |
| D’Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee | High Court of Australia | Yes | D’Alessandro v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee P9/1996 [1996] HCA Trans 300 | Australia | Cited to contrast the legal position in Singapore with that of Australia regarding overcharging of legal fees. |
| Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1052 | Singapore | Cited for the legal position in Singapore regarding the court's power to cancel unfair or unreasonable agreements on costs. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Tan Thian Chua | Singapore District Court | Yes | [1994] SGDSC 11 | Singapore | Cited to show that offering taxation can remedy or ameliorate potential professional misconduct in the form of overcharging. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 482 | Singapore | Cited to show that the Law Society should advise or require the aggrieved party to have the bill taxed first. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 98(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(h) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 109 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 111 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 113 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 83(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 19 of 2008) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 83 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gross Overcharging
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Professional Conduct
- Taxation of Costs
- Paralegal
- Warrant to Act
15.2 Keywords
- Overcharging
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Action
- Singapore
- Ethics
- Professional Conduct
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Misconduct
- Overcharging
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Regulatory Law