Law Society of Singapore v. Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin: Disciplinary Review for Mental Capacity & Overcharging

The Law Society of Singapore and the Attorney-General applied for a review of a disciplinary tribunal's determination that there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin, regarding his representation of Mdm A, who lacked mental capacity, and potential overcharging. The High Court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, set aside the determination and ordered the appointment of a new disciplinary tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint, finding that the original tribunal failed to adequately address the mental capacity issues raised in the complaint.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Determination set aside; new Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Law Society and Attorney-General sought review of a disciplinary determination regarding Alvin Yeo's conduct in representing a client lacking mental capacity and potential overcharging. The court allowed the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralApplicantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Jamie Pang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardAppeal AllowedWon
Yeo Khirn Hai AlvinRespondentIndividualDetermination Set AsideLost
Mdm AOtherIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jamie PangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy TanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Gregory VijayendranRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Jason LimDe Souza Lim & Goh LLP
Teng Boon HuiDe Souza Lim & Goh LLP
Chelva RajahTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. The Law Society and Attorney-General sought review of a disciplinary tribunal’s determination.
  2. The determination concerned Alvin Yeo’s conduct in representing Mdm A.
  3. Mdm A was found to lack mental capacity.
  4. The complaint included issues of mental capacity and overcharging.
  5. The Disciplinary Tribunal limited its investigation to overcharging.
  6. The Law Society withdrew charges related to mental capacity.
  7. The Court of Appeal had directed investigation into the fees incurred by Mdm A.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matter, , [2020] SGHC 3
  2. Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin, 810, Originating Summons No 810 of 2019
  3. Attorney-General v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin, 812, Originating Summons No 812 of 2019
  4. The Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin, 15, DT/15/2017
  5. The Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin, 3, [2019] SGDT 3
  6. Unknown, 71, Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011
  7. Unknown, 27, Civil Appeal No 27 of 2014
  8. Unknown, 164, Bill of Costs No 164 of 2016

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent led a team of lawyers at WongPartnership LLP who advised and acted for Mdm A.
Two of Mdm A’s sisters commenced Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011.
OSF 71/2011 culminated in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Civil Appeal No 27 of 2014.
Respondent's retainer as solicitor for Mdm A ended.
Court of Appeal directed Mdm A’s deputies to investigate into the quantum and validity of fees paid to WP.
WP filed Bill of Costs No 164 of 2016.
The deputies updated the Court of Appeal that the parties had reached an agreement on BC 164/2016.
The Court of Appeal referred a complaint against the respondent to the Council of the Law Society.
The Law Society preferred four charges against the respondent.
First pre-hearing conference.
Next pre-hearing conference.
Next pre-hearing conference took place.
The Law Society preferred a 5th charge against the respondent.
The Law Society informed the DT that it would be withdrawing the 1st and 3rd charges.
Substantive proceedings before the DT took place.
Substantive proceedings before the DT took place.
The DT rendered its determination.
The AG filed OS 812/2019.
Hearing Date
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
    • Outcome: The court found that the Disciplinary Tribunal failed to adequately investigate the issues of mental capacity and overcharging, thus breaching its duty.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to ensure client's mental capacity
      • Gross overcharging
  2. Scope of Complaint
    • Outcome: The court determined that the complaint included issues of mental capacity, and the Disciplinary Tribunal erred in limiting its investigation to overcharging.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions
    • Outcome: The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to quash the Disciplinary Tribunal's determination due to illegality.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Determination
  2. Setting Aside of Determination
  3. Rehearing of Complaint

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Legal Profession Act
  • Failure to Uphold Professional Conduct Rules

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Conduct
  • Regulatory Compliance

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re BKRCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 81SingaporeThe Court of Appeal held that Mdm A lacked decision-making capacity as early as 26 October 2010 when she created a particular trust.
Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican and another v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[2010] 3 SLR 1097SingaporeReferences to “correctness, legality or propriety” in these two provisions, which are directly referable to the three grounds of judicial review, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Chia Shih Ching James v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[1985-1986] SLR(R) 209SingaporeThe appellate jurisdiction which existed prior to those amendments remains.
Law Society of Singapore v Disciplinary CommitteeUnknownYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 886SingaporeThe appellate jurisdiction which existed prior to those amendments remains.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant KulkarniUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85SingaporeThe Court of Three Judges has appellate jurisdiction and is able to “go into the merits of the findings and determination of the [DT] on the basis of the evidence led”
Re Seah Pong TshaiUnknownYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 744SingaporeThe DT has a duty to hear and investigate the complaint.
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 483SingaporeThe disciplinary process cannot be procedurally and substantively contingent on the subsistence of a complaint.
Re Shan RajagopalUnknownYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 60SingaporeThe “matter … refers to the charges formulated by the Law Society and not the original complaint”
The Law Society of Singapore v Ravi MadasamyUnknownYes[2006] SGDSC 8SingaporeThe Law Society is absolutely correct that we cannot go beyond the charge preferred by them against the Respondent.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi MadasamyUnknownYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 300SingaporeThe disciplinary committee was “entitled to express its misgivings”
Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2016] 1 SLR 779SingaporeIllegality, as a ground of judicial review, “meant the decision-maker had to correctly understand the law regulating his decision-making power and give effect to it”.
Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil ServiceUnknownYes[1985] AC 374United KingdomIllegality, as a ground of judicial review, “meant the decision-maker had to correctly understand the law regulating his decision-making power and give effect to it”.
The King v The Board of EducationCourt of AppealYes[1910] 2 KB 165United KingdomThe English Court of Appeal set aside the Board of Education’s (“the Board”) decision on the ground that there was a “non-exercise of the jurisdiction entrusted to it” as the Board had not answered the question that was referred to it.
Board of Education v Rice and othersHouse of LordsYes[1911] AC 179United KingdomThe language used by the House of Lords to set aside the Board’s determination was that the Board had failed to fulfil its duty to answer the true question that was referred to it
Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical CouncilUnknownYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 553SingaporeA useful summary of Rice (Court of Appeal)
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielUnknownYes[2010] 3 SLR 390SingaporeThe DT had held that it did not possess the discretion to refrain from referring matters to the Court of Three Judges once all the elements of a disciplinary charge had been made out.
The Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielUnknownYes[2009] SGDT 6SingaporeThe DT in that case had expressly stated that they were prepared to find that there was no cause of sufficient gravity notwithstanding that all the elements of the charge were satisfied.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems LtdUnknownYes[2015] Bus LR 626England and WalesAkenhead J held that there was an irregularity affecting the arbitral tribunal or the award on the basis that the tribunal had failed to deal with two material issues that were raised before it.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems LtdUnknownYes[2014] EWHC 4375England and WalesThe tribunal had not applied their minds to the issues and “any right minded party to [the] arbitration would feel that justice had not been served”
Lovell Partnerships (Northern) Ltd caseUnknownYes(1996) 81 BLR 83England and WalesLike Mance J on the Lovell Partnerships (Northern) Ltd case (1996) 81 BLR 83, I can see that it would be "invidious and embarrassing [for the tribunal] to be required to try to free [itself] of all previous ideas and to re-determine the same issues" and that even for a conscientious tribunal seeking to redetermine such issues the exercise could well "create its own undesirable tensions and pressures".
Law Society of Singapore v Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin and another matterCourt of Three JudgesYes[2011] 2 SLR 620SingaporeThe modern approach as to the effect of a breach of a statutory provision is not to treat every breach as a disempowering or invalidating event.
Ng Swee Lang v Sassoon Samuel BernardCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 597SingaporeThe modern approach as to the effect of a breach of a statutory provision is not to treat every breach as a disempowering or invalidating event.
R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington and anotherUnknownYes[1992] 3 All ER 566United KingdomWhen paragraphs such as those considered in [Ostler] are used, then the legislative intention is that questions as to invalidity may be raised on the specified grounds in the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, but that otherwise the jurisdiction of the court is excluded in the interest of certainty.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte OstlerUnknownYes[1976] 3 All ER 90United KingdomWhen paragraphs such as those considered in [Ostler] are used, then the legislative intention is that questions as to invalidity may be raised on the specified grounds in the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, but that otherwise the jurisdiction of the court is excluded in the interest of certainty.
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[2016] 4 SLR 192SingaporeThe object of s 91A is to consolidate the judicial review process to the end of the DT process
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte LtdUnknownYes[2011] 2 SLR 1279SingaporeThe civil jurisdiction of the High Court does not include jurisdiction over any disciplinary matter under Pt VII of the LPA.
Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah and other applicationsUnknownYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 348SingaporeThe jurisdiction of a court is its authority, however derived, to hear and determine a dispute that is brought before it.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManUnknownYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117SingaporeCourts would generally not invoke such powers where statutory powers are present, save in exceptional circumstances
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo MarioUnknownYes[2013] 3 SLR 258SingaporeCourts would generally not invoke such powers where statutory powers are present, save in exceptional circumstances
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of SingaporeUnknownYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 821SingaporeCourts would generally not invoke such powers where statutory powers are present, save in exceptional circumstances
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitUnknownYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeThe test for extensions of time to appeal from court decisions
Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae WooCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 196SingaporeIt is the overall picture that emerges to the court as to where the justice of the case lies which will ultimately be decisive
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appealUnknownYes[2019] 1 SLR 499SingaporeIn the context of considering an extension of time to appeal, the court adopts a “very low threshold”, the test is whether the appeal is “hopeless”
Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and anotherUnknownYes[2016] 1 SLR 1020SingaporeThe applicant must ensure that “the delay is accounted for to the satisfaction of the Judge”

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R1, 2010 Rev Ed)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015)
Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules (Cap 161, R 2, 2010 Rev Ed)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)Singapore
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Mental Capacity
  • Overcharging
  • Professional Conduct
  • Judicial Review
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Complaint
  • Determination
  • Illegality
  • Charges

15.2 Keywords

  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Mental Capacity
  • Overcharging
  • Legal Profession
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility90
Disciplinary Proceedings90
Mental Capacity Law70
Assessment of Legal Costs60

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Regulation of Legal Profession