Law Society v Kurubalan: Champerty, Legal Profession Act, and Professional Misconduct

In Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju, the Court of Three Judges in Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society for sanctions against Kurubalan, an advocate and solicitor, for entering into a champertous agreement. Kurubalan admitted to the charge, and the court ordered his suspension from practice for six months, along with payment of costs. The case involved a personal injury claim in Queensland, Australia, and the agreement stipulated payment to Kurubalan based on a percentage of the recovered amount.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges

1.2 Outcome

Respondent suspended from practice for six months and ordered to pay costs.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court suspends lawyer Kurubalan for entering into a champertous agreement, violating the Legal Profession Act. The case highlights ethical concerns in legal practice.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardJudgment for ApplicantWon
Kurubalan s/o Manickam RengarajuRespondentIndividualSuspension from practiceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Philip Fong Yeng FattHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Kirsten TeoHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Tham LijingTan Rajah & Cheah
Chelva R RajahTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. Respondent, a Singaporean lawyer, entered into a champertous agreement with his client.
  2. The agreement stipulated that the Respondent would receive 30% or 40% of the amount recovered in a personal injury claim.
  3. The personal injury claim arose from an accident in Queensland, Australia.
  4. The Respondent sought to enforce the champertous agreement after the client received a settlement.
  5. The client made a complaint against the Respondent to the Law Society of Singapore.
  6. The Respondent admitted to the charge before the Disciplinary Tribunal.
  7. The Respondent attempted to evade liability by claiming he was acting in his personal capacity.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju, Originating Summons No 1114 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 135

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor.
Madam Ho Shin Hwee injured in a motor accident in Brisbane, Australia.
Complainant wanted to bring a claim for compensation.
Complainant executed a Warrant to Act authorising and appointing Kuru & Co.
Respondent and Complainant signed the Champertous Agreement.
Complainant executed a second Warrant to Act authorising and appointing the Respondent’s firm.
Complainant, her mother, her sister and the Respondent flew to Australia to meet with and engage solicitors there.
Complainant appointed Creevey Russell Lawyers to act for her in Queensland.
Settlement offer sent to the Respondent and the Complainant.
Settlement offer accepted.
Creevey Russell sent a tax invoice for A$81,567.43.
Settlement Agreement signed by the Complainant.
Respondent spoke with the Complainant over the telephone.
Creevey Russell informed the Complainant’s mother that certain documents dated 31 May 2011 needed to be signed by the Complainant.
Complainant’s mother spoke to the Respondent and asked him about the documents.
Meeting held between the Complainant, her family, and the Respondent.
A$3,136,727.57 paid into an account belonging to the Complainant.
Respondent sent an e-mail to the Complainant regarding the Champertous Agreement.
Respondent issued his bill of professional costs in connection with the Complainant’s claim.
Respondent sent an e-mail to the Complainant pressing for payment of his share of the Settlement Sum.
Respondent again e-mailed the Complainant and her mother and set a deadline of 5 pm on 3 November 2011 for the transfer of funds.
Complainant made a complaint under s 85(1) of the Act against the Respondent.
Inquiry Committee heard the matter.
Disciplinary Tribunal heard the matter.
Inquiry Committee issued its report.
Court ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for a period of six months and further that he pay the agreed or taxed costs of the proceedings.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Legal Profession Act
    • Outcome: The court found that the Respondent breached the Legal Profession Act by entering into a champertous agreement, constituting grossly improper conduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Entering into a champertous agreement
      • Grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty
  2. Appropriate Sanction for Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court ordered a six-month suspension from practice, considering the aggravating factors and the limited impact of the misconduct on the Singapore jurisdiction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Suspension from practice
      • Consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Action
  2. Suspension from Practice

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Law Society v Chan Chow WangUnknownYes[1974–1976] SLR(R) 237SingaporeCited for the proposition that champertous agreements remain egregious and reprehensible.
Lau Liat Meng v Disciplinary CommitteeUnknownYes[1965–1967] SLR(R) 641SingaporeCited for the proposition that champertous agreements remain egregious and reprehensible.
Law Society of Singapore v Ong LilianHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 187SingaporeCited for the general sentencing principles in disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelUnknownYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited for the principles to be applied in deciding what orders should be made in disciplinary proceedings.
Twinsectra Ltd v YardleyHouse of LordsYes[2002] UKHL 12United KingdomCited for the standard of dishonesty.
Bultitude v The Law SocietyEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2004] EWCA Civ 1853United KingdomCited in relation to the standard of dishonesty.
Hill v ArchboldQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1968] 1 QB 686England and WalesCited for the definition of maintenance.
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and anotherUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 989SingaporeCited for the definition of champerty.
Giles v ThompsonHouse of LordsYes[1994] 1 AC 142United KingdomCited for the historical development of the law of champerty.
Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)Court of AppealYes[1975] 1 QB 373England and WalesCited for the traditional rule against contingency fees.
Re Trepca Mines (No 2)UnknownYes[1962] 3 WLR 955England and WalesCited for the rationale behind the common law's condemnation of champerty.
Thai Trading (A Firm) v Taylor & AnorEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[1998] EWCA Civ 370United KingdomCited for the potential conflict of interest faced by a lawyer with a financial stake in litigation.
Stevens v KeoghHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1946) 72 CLR 1AustraliaCited for the notion that public policy is not fixed but varies according to the state and development of society.
R (Factortame Ltd) v Transport Secretary (No 8)UnknownYes[2003] 1 QB 381England and WalesCited for the desirability of access to justice as a facet of public policy.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian RickHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 68SingaporeCited for the qualitatively different light in which mitigating factors are viewed in disciplinary jurisdiction.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 653SingaporeCited for the indications of remorse.
Law Society of Singapore v Terence Tan Bian ChyeDisciplinary Tribunal of the Supreme CourtYes[2007] SGDSC 10SingaporeCited to note that threatening civil proceedings might have amounted to professional misconduct.
Re Linus JosephUnknownYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 12SingaporeCited for the principle that the words 'guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper misconduct in the discharge of his professional duty' refer to the discharge of his professional duty in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore and not in some other capacity.
Winnie Lo v HKSARHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes[2012] HKCFA 23Hong KongCited as a Hong Kong case where champerty remains both a crime and a civil wrong.
Law Society of Singapore v Ang Chin Peng and anotherUnknownYes[2013] 1 SLR 946SingaporeCited for comparison to a case of gross overcharging where the respondents had made misrepresentations to their clients and where their conduct was found to have bordered on dishonesty.
Ladd v London Road Car CoUnknownYes(1900) 110 L. T. 80England and WalesCited for the principle that it is perfectly consistent with the highest honour to take up a speculative action if a solicitor has honestly satisfied himself by careful inquiry that an honest case exists.
Clyne v NSW Bar AssociationHigh Court of AustraliaYes[1960] HCA 40AustraliaCited for the principle that a solicitor may with perfect propriety act for a client who has no means, and expend his own money in payment of counsel's fees and other outgoings, although he has no prospect of being paid either fees or outgoings except by virtue of a judgment or order against the other party to the proceedings.
Legal Services Commissioner v Barrett (Legal Practice)Victorian Civil and Administrative TribunalYes[2012] VCAT 1800AustraliaCited as a foreign precedent where the respondent faced charges of imposing a contingency fee in a personal injury case.
HKSAR v Mui Kwok-keungHong Kong District CourtYes[2013] HKDC 424Hong KongCited as a foreign precedent where the accused was found guilty of five charges relating to champerty.
Mui Kwok Keung Louie v The Bar CouncilHong Kong Court of AppealYes[2011] HKCA 63Hong KongCited as a foreign precedent where the appeal was dismissed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
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 83(1)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 107(1)(b)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 107(3)Singapore
Queensland Legal Profession Act 2007 s 325(1)Australia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Champerty
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Suspension
  • Advocate and Solicitor
  • Contingency Fee
  • Settlement Sum
  • Warrant to Act
  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Grossly Improper Conduct

15.2 Keywords

  • Champerty
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Singapore
  • Law Society
  • Suspension
  • Solicitor

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility95
Champerty90
Indemnity costs50
Maintenance40
Breach of Contract30
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Professional Ethics
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Champerty