Law Society of Singapore v Syn Kok Kay: Disciplinary Proceedings for Overcharging and Non-Compliance with Court Order
In Law Society of Singapore v Syn Kok Kay, the Court of Three Judges of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society of Singapore to sanction Syn Kok Kay for overcharging a client, JWR Pte Ltd, and failing to comply with a court order. The court found Syn Kok Kay guilty of overcharging, billing $1,340,000 for work taxed at $288,000, and of non-compliance with a court order by failing to deliver a bill of costs for taxation within the stipulated time frame. The court ordered a suspension of three years and nine months, commencing upon his discharge from bankruptcy.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Sanctioned; suspension of three years and nine months, commencing upon discharge from bankruptcy.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Three Judges sanctioned Syn Kok Kay for overcharging a client and non-compliance with a court order, suspending him for three years and nine months.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Syn Kok Kay | Respondent | Individual | Sanctioned | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The respondent charged JWR $1,340,000 in professional fees for services in Suit 992.
- The costs for work done were taxed down to $288,000 from $1,340,000.
- The respondent failed to deliver a bill of costs within the stipulated time frame.
- The respondent was ordered to refund the difference of $1,052,000.
- The respondent was adjudged bankrupt on 30 September 2021.
- The respondent transferred a vehicle and a club membership to his wife for $1 each during taxation proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Syn Kok Kay, Originating Application No 2 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent called to the Singapore Bar | |
| Respondent engaged by JWR Pte Ltd to sue Mr Edmond Pereira and Edmond Pereira Law Corporation | |
| Respondent began rendering bills to JWR Pte Ltd | |
| Respondent rendered last bill to JWR Pte Ltd | |
| Suit 992 was dismissed by the High Court | |
| Tan Siong Thye J ordered taxation of the professional fees | |
| Deadline for respondent to deliver bill of costs | |
| Respondent filed an appeal against Tan J’s decision | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Respondent requested to make further arguments | |
| Request by the respondent to make further arguments was denied | |
| Respondent filed his bill of costs | |
| Respondent transferred a vehicle to his wife for $1 | |
| Amended, more detailed bill of costs filed | |
| Taxation hearing before Assistant Registrar Crystal Tan | |
| Respondent’s application for a review of AR Tan’s decision was dismissed by Tan J | |
| JWR served the respondent with a statutory demand | |
| Respondent transferred a membership of the Chinese Swimming Club to his wife for $1 | |
| JWR applied for a bankruptcy order against the respondent | |
| Respondent was adjudged bankrupt | |
| Hearing at Court of Three Judges | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Overcharging
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent had overcharged JWR within the meaning of overcharging under r 17(8) of the PCR 2015 and that there was due cause for the respondent to be sanctioned in respect of the First Charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Excessive Fees
- Unethical Billing Practices
- Non-Compliance with Court Order
- Outcome: The court considered that the respondent’s non-compliance with the Taxation Order constitutes misconduct unbefitting an advocate or solicitor under s 83(2)(h) of the LPA, and that there is due cause for sanction in this regard.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to Deliver Bill of Costs
- Disrespect of Court
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Actions
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JWR Pte Ltd v Syn Kok Kay (trading as Patrick Chin Syn & Co) | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 253 | Singapore | Cited for the order of taxation of professional fees and the order for the respondent to deliver a bill of costs. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen | NA | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 802 | Singapore | Cited for the objective test for overcharging and the principle that the greater the amount of overcharging, the more seriously the misconduct will be viewed. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul | NA | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1184 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that taxation is the most objective and conclusive way of determining the amount of fees a solicitor is entitled to, and that dishonesty or deceit will be taken to be severely aggravating. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o Daniel | NA | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of Disciplinary Tribunals as filters ensuring that only the most serious complaints are referred. |
| Re Lau Liat Meng | NA | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 186 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that dishonesty related to the overcharging is a relevant consideration and the making of restitution of the amount overcharged has been treated as a mitigating factor. |
| Re Han Ngiap Juan | NA | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Cited for the making of restitution of the amount overcharged has been treated as a mitigating factor. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang | NA | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1068 | Singapore | Cited for the centrality of integrity to the legal profession and the corresponding strictness with which dishonesty should be dealt with. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ang Chin Peng and another | NA | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 946 | Singapore | Cited for the padding of bills of costs submitted for taxation will be taken to be aggravating. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer | NA | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1171 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the respondent’s seniority is undoubtedly aggravating. |
| Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua | NA | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 1417 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that history of public service bears limited weight in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario | NA | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 1386 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that non-compliance with a costs order could not, in and of itself, amount to misconduct for the purposes of a disciplinary charge. |
| Re Marshall David | NA | Yes | [1971–1973] SLR(R) 554 | Singapore | Cited for comparison to a solicitor who had been found to have breached an oral undertaking to the Attorney-General was suspended from practice for six months. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Naidu Priyalatha | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 224 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a solicitor’s undertaking is sui generis, owing to its status as an instrument which can be relied upon. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy | NA | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1141 | Singapore | Cited for the aims of disciplinary sanctions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | NA | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 320 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that associating an undischarged bankruptcy with a greater period of suspension runs the risk of sending the erroneous message that bankruptcy itself is an indicator of some moral or ethical taint that justifies a heavier punishment. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Syn Kok Kay | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2022] SGDT 10 | Singapore | The Disciplinary Tribunal found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for referral to the Court of Three Judges in respect of the First Charge and the Second Charge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| s 26(1)(e) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 26(9)(b) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Overcharging
- Non-Compliance
- Taxation Order
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Misconduct
- Bankruptcy
- Bill of Costs
15.2 Keywords
- Overcharging
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Legal Profession
- Singapore
- Court Order
- Sanction
- Suspension
- Bankruptcy
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 95 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Overcharging | 90 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 85 |
| Contempt of Court | 50 |
| Bankruptcy | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Evidence | 20 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Solicitor Conduct