Law Society v Wan Hui Hong: Solicitor Dishonesty & Client Gifts
In Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James, the Court of Three Judges in Singapore heard an application by the Law Society of Singapore to punish Wan Hui Hong James, a solicitor, for misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. The solicitor admitted to accepting a significant gift from a client without advising her to seek independent advice, breaching the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules. The court found the solicitor dishonest and ordered him to be struck off the roll.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Ordered that he be struck off the roll.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Three Judges found Wan Hui Hong James, a solicitor, dishonest for accepting a significant gift from a client without independent advice, ordering him struck off the roll.
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 | S H Almenoar |
| Wan Hui Hong James | Respondent | Individual | Struck off the roll | Lost | Wong Siew Hong, Poonaam Bai, Wayne Ong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| S H Almenoar | R Ramason & Almenoar |
| Wong Siew Hong | Eldan Law LLP |
| Poonaam Bai | Eldan Law LLP |
| Wayne Ong | Eldan Law LLP |
4. Facts
- The respondent, a solicitor, acted for Madam Chiang, the owner of a property.
- Madam Chiang had a history of mental health problems and had been treated for schizophrenia.
- The respondent obtained a valuation report valuing the property at $1,100,000.
- Madam Chiang signed a letter stating she wished to keep only $500,000 from the sale proceeds, with the respondent keeping the excess.
- The property was sold for $960,000.
- Madam Chiang only received $500,000 from the sale.
- The respondent did not adequately inform Madam Chiang of the property's valuation or selling price.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James, Originating Summons No 952 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 85
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent admitted to the Singapore Bar | |
| Madam Chiang Choy Peng became the owner of the Property | |
| Madam Chiang admitted to the Woodlands Home for the Aged | |
| Madam Chiang transferred to the Bukit Batok Home for the Aged | |
| Singapore Land Registry wrote to Madam Chiang | |
| Registry informed Madam Chiang that a Certificate of Title over the Property had been issued in her name | |
| Respondent's involvement began when Yeo asked him to act for Madam Chiang | |
| Madam Chiang made a statutory declaration that she had lost or misplaced the Deed of Conveyance | |
| Respondent wrote to occupiers demanding delivery of vacant possession | |
| Solicitors conveyed the occupiers’ intention to claim adverse possession of the Property | |
| Dr Eu Pui Wai expressed his opinion that Madam Chiang was mentally fit and capable of making a Statutory Declaration | |
| Lee noted Madam Chiang’s “firm instructions” to execute a Power of Attorney in favor of the respondent | |
| Madam Chiang signed a Power of Attorney giving the respondent a substantial degree of authority to manage her affairs | |
| Lee noted the execution of the Power of Attorney the previous day | |
| Lee noted Madam Chiang’s “firm instructions” to “execute a Last Will and Testament” naming the respondent as sole trustee and beneficiary | |
| Lee drew up, and Madam Chiang signed, a will making the respondent the sole trustee and beneficiary of all her assets | |
| Lee noted the execution of the Will the previous day | |
| Lee recovered vacant possession of the Property on behalf of Madam Chiang without litigation | |
| Respondent requested for a valuation of the Property from Colliers Jardine | |
| Respondent received a valuation report valuing the Property at $1,100,000 | |
| Madam Chiang met the respondent at his office and signed a letter stating that she wished only to keep $500,000 out of the proceeds of the sale of the Property | |
| Respondent engaged Victor Yip to handle legal matters pertaining to the sale of the Property | |
| An option signed by Madam Chiang was given for the sale of the Property at $960,000 | |
| Yip paid over the option fee of $9,600 to the respondent by cheque | |
| Yip paid over $86,400 to the respondent, also by cheque | |
| Completion of the sale of the Property took place | |
| Yip received a letter signed by Madam Chiang instructing that all correspondence meant for her be directed to the respondent instead | |
| Respondent issued a cheque for $500,000 in Madam Chiang’s favor | |
| The unusual nature of this gift only fortuitously came to light in 2009, when the Auditor-General’s Office audited the books of the Bukit Batok Home for the Aged | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Rule 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent had breached Rule 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Accepting a significant gift from a client without advising the client to seek independent advice
- Dishonesty
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's breach of Rule 46 was tainted with dishonesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court affirmed that the criminal standard of proof applies in disciplinary proceedings against advocates and solicitors, but flagged the issue for closer consideration in a future appropriate matter.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] SGHC 5
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308
- [2005] 3 All ER 1116
- 2006 NSWSC 1338
- 2007 VSC 520
- [2008] HKCU 393
- [1996] AC 563
- [2001] 1 WLR 340
8. Remedies Sought
- Punishment under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited for the position that the criminal standard of proof applies in disciplinary proceedings against advocates and solicitors. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the position that the criminal standard of proof applies in disciplinary proceedings against advocates and solicitors. |
| Campbell v Hamlet | Privy Council | Yes | [2005] 3 All ER 1116 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited for the position that the criminal standard of proof applies in disciplinary proceedings against advocates and solicitors. |
| Jackson (previously known as Subramaniam) v Legal Practitioners Admission Board | New South Wales Supreme Court | No | 2006 NSWSC 1338 | Australia | Cited as an example of a jurisdiction that applies the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against legal professionals. |
| Re The Legal Profession Act 2004 and Re OG, a Lawyer | Victoria Supreme Court | No | 2007 VSC 520 | Australia | Cited as an example of a jurisdiction that applies the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against legal professionals. |
| A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong | Court of Final Appeal | No | [2008] HKCU 393 | Hong Kong | Cited as an example of a jurisdiction that applies the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against legal professionals. |
| In re H and others (minors) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) | N/A | Yes | [1996] AC 563 | N/A | Cited for the definition of the civil standard of proof. |
| B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 WLR 340 | N/A | Cited for the remark that where the allegations against an advocate and solicitor are of a very serious nature, there is likely to be little practical difference between the civil and criminal standards of proof. |
| Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] Ch 1 | England | Cited for the definition of a fiduciary. |
| Wright v Carter | N/A | Yes | [1903] 1 Ch 27 | N/A | Cited for the principle that whenever you have fiduciary relations, there arises a presumption of influence. |
| Johnson v Buttress | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1936) 56 CLR 113 | Australia | Cited for the duty of a person in a position of influence to act in the interest of the person who is governed by his judgment. |
| Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie bin Omar | Privy Council | Yes | [1929] AC 127 | N/A | Cited for the principle that it is necessary for the fiduciary to prove that the gift was the result of the free exercise of independent will. |
| In re Coomber; Coomber v Coomber | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1911] 1 Ch 723 | England | Cited for the standard of independent advice required when the intended recipient of the gift is a fiduciary. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 773 | N/A | Cited for the steps that a bank wishing to uphold the transaction should take whenever a transaction is questionable enough to put the bank on inquiry. |
| Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 594 | N/A | Cited to emphasize the importance of maintaining contemporaneous attendance notes. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the lack of attendance notes may lead to adverse inferences being drawn against the advocate and solicitor who fails to keep these attendance notes. |
| Low Ah Cheow and others v Ng Hock Guan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that adverse inferences may be drawn against an advocate and solicitor not only in disciplinary proceedings, but also in civil proceedings where he is a witness. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
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 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 94(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 98 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed), r 46 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Significant gift
- Independent advice
- Fiduciary duty
- Solicitor-client relationship
- Undue influence
- Dishonesty
- Professional misconduct
- Striking off
- Power of Attorney
- Will
15.2 Keywords
- Solicitor
- Dishonesty
- Client gift
- Independent advice
- Fiduciary duty
- Legal Profession Act
- Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
- Striking off
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Ethics
- Professional Conduct
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Fiduciary Duty