Law Society v Ang Chin Peng: Disciplinary Action for Gross Overcharging in Estate Matters
The Law Society of Singapore brought disciplinary proceedings against Ang Chin Peng and DeCruz Martin Francis for grossly overcharging clients in relation to the Quek Estate and the Leong Estate. The Court of Three Judges found the respondents guilty of grossly improper conduct, emphasizing that fee agreements, even if agreed upon, are subject to review for fairness and reasonableness. The court imposed a three-month suspension on each respondent, highlighting their misrepresentation of the Public Trustee's guide, adamant refusal of taxation, and tendering of grossly inflated Bills of Costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Respondents suspended for three months.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Three Judges addressed disciplinary proceedings against Ang Chin Peng and DeCruz Martin Francis for grossly overcharging clients in estate matters, resulting in a three-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 | Judgment for Applicant | Won | |
| Ang Chin Peng | Respondent | Individual | Suspension | Lost | |
| DeCruz Martin Francis | Respondent | Individual | Suspension | 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
4. Facts
- The respondents, Ang Chin Peng and DeCruz Martin Francis, were partners in the law firm Ang & Lee (later ALD LLP).
- The Law Society brought charges against the respondents for grossly overcharging clients in relation to two estates: the Quek Estate and the Leong Estate.
- The respondents claimed they had oral agreements with the executors and trustees of the estates to charge fees based on a percentage of the gross value of the assets.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal found the respondents guilty of overcharging, despite the existence of the oral agreements.
- The court-ordered taxation of the respondents' bills resulted in significantly lower amounts being allowed compared to the original invoices.
- The respondents misrepresented the Public Trustee's guide to justify their fees and refused to allow taxation of their bills.
- The respondents filed grossly inflated Bills of Costs in an attempt to justify the fees charged.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Ang Chin Peng & another, Originating Summons No 74 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 234
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Quek Seng Kee died testate. | |
| Kang and QCY engaged Laycock & Ong to obtain grant of probate for the Quek Estate. | |
| Laycock & Ong obtained the grant of probate for the Quek Estate. | |
| The Quek Estate file was transferred from Laycock to Ang & Lee. | |
| Ang & Lee issued an invoice for the Quek Estate for S$53,000.00. | |
| Ang & Lee issued an invoice for the Quek Estate for S$359,417.17. | |
| Madam Leong Siew Fong passed away. | |
| Kang passed away. | |
| QCS, the Complainant and Goh met the Respondents to discuss terms for handling the Leong Estate. | |
| Ang & Lee issued an invoice for the Quek Estate for $489,267.17. | |
| The Respondents wrote to the Trio, making representations about their legal costs. | |
| Another meeting between the Trio and the Respondents took place. | |
| The Respondents sent a letter to the Trio to confirm the agreed fees. | |
| The Quek Estate paid Ang & Lee the sum of $300,000. | |
| Ang & Lee issued an invoice for the Leong Estate for the sum of $50,000. | |
| Ang & Lee issued an invoice for the Leong Estate for the sum of $100,640. | |
| The Complainant and Goh instructed Rajah & Tann LLP to take over the handling of the Leong Estate. | |
| Rajah & Tann LLP wrote to the Respondents complaining that the fees charged by Ang & Lee for attending to the Leong Estate were grossly excessive. | |
| The Respondents replied to Rajah & Tann LLP stating that as legal costs had been agreed upon, the issue of re-negotiation of legal costs or taxation of legal costs does not arise. | |
| The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Law Society. | |
| Lee & Lee wrote to the Respondents asking for taxation of the invoices for the Quek Estate. | |
| An Inquiry Committee was convened. | |
| The Respondents replied to Lee & Lee, declining the offer. | |
| Disciplinary proceedings were formally commenced with the Law Society filing its Statement of Case. | |
| ALD LLP was dissolved. | |
| QCY on behalf of the Quek Estate, and the Complainant and Goh on behalf of the Leong Estate, applied to the court for an order that the Respondents’ respective invoices be taxed. | |
| The Disciplinary Tribunal rendered its decision. | |
| Respondents’ joint affidavit filed. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Suspension order to take effect. |
7. Legal Issues
- Gross Overcharging
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents were guilty of gross overcharging, which amounted to grossly improper conduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Excessive Fees
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
- Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
- Validity of Oral Fee Agreements
- Outcome: The court held that oral fee agreements are not invalid but are subject to review for fairness and reasonableness.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Enforceability of Oral Agreements
- Compliance with Legal Profession Act
- Fairness and Reasonableness of Fees
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents' conduct amounted to professional misconduct, specifically grossly improper conduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of Duty to Charge Fairly
- Misrepresentation of Facts
- Refusal to Allow Taxation of Bills
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
- Payment of Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
- Professional Misconduct
- Gross Overcharging
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Responsibility
- Estate Administration
- Probate
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1184 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the starting point for overcharging amounting to grossly improper conduct should be a fine in the first instance. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng John | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited to support the position that an oral fee agreement is not invalid, as the absence of formalities goes towards enforceability rather than validity. |
| Jemma Trust Co Ltd v Liptrott and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 WLR 646 | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that it is open to solicitors to charge by reference to the value of the estate, provided that the overall remuneration is fair and reasonable. |
| Re Abdul Rahim Rajudin | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 359 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a solicitor's overriding duty to charge fairly dictates that the final bill must not be grossly disproportionate to the time spent on the matter. |
| Wong Foong Chai v Lin Kuo Hao | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 74 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that no agreement for the payment of costs between client and solicitor is sacrosanct and immune to investigation by the court. |
| Law Society v Low Yong Sen | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 802 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the test of overcharging is an objective one, having regard to the nature of the work done and any prior agreement between the parties. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 701 | Singapore | Cited to show that overcharging can still occur even if there is a prior agreement on fees. |
| Re Han Ngiap Juan | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extent to which a client is overcharged is a very strong factor against an advocate and solicitor accused of overcharging amounting to grossly improper conduct. |
| Re Lau Liat Meng | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 186 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a solicitor was suspended for dishonestly inflating his fee note and putting up a false time sheet to support it. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Remuneration) Order (Cap 161, O 1, 2010 Rev Ed) Order 2 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(h) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 94(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 98(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 109(3) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 109(4) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 109(5) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 109(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gross Overcharging
- Fee Agreement
- Taxation of Costs
- Professional Misconduct
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Public Trustee's Guide
- Bills of Costs
- Executors
- Trustees
15.2 Keywords
- Overcharging
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Action
- Estate Law
- Professional Conduct
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Professional Responsibility
- Legal Ethics
- Overcharging
- Disciplinary Proceedings