Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 21 August 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 145
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 672 of 2006
• Date: 21 August 2006
• Published date: 22 August 2006
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jimmy Yap (Jimmy Yap & Co)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 145
• Defendant Counsel: C R Rajah SC (Tan Rajah & Cheah), Gregory Vijayendran and Chua Sui Tong (Wong Partnership)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Complaint alleging advocate and solicitor falsely attesting bills of sale and guarantees,Disciplinary Committee finding advocate and solicitor guilty of grossly improper conduct,Complainants' testimonies only available direct evidence of events at hearing before Disciplinary Committee,Whether Disciplinary Committee erring in making various inferential findings,Professional conduct,Legal Profession,Grossly improper conduct,Complaint lodged with Law Society against advocate and solicitor

21 August 2006 Judgment reserved.

Tan Lee Meng J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This case concerns an application under s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) for the respondent, Mr Lim Cheong Peng, an advocate and solicitor of 13 years’ standing and a partner of M/s Timothy Ong Lim & Partners, to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 83 of the Act for grossly improper conduct.

Background

2 The present proceedings stem from a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) in December 2001 against the respondent by Mdm Lim Tok Wah (“Mdm Lim”) and her husband, Mr Lim Then Hock (“Mr Lim”), who are both referred to as “the complainants” in this judgment. In essence, their complaint was that the respondent falsely attested that bills of sale and guarantees had been executed by them in his presence when they were not.

3 Mdm Lim is the sole proprietor of Goldsun Motor Vehicle Charter & Rental, which is in the motor vehicle rental business. In June 2000, Mdm Lim required a loan to pay for the renewal of the Certificates of Entitlement (“COE”) for her motor vehicles. She approached Tai Thong Lee Trading (Pte) Ltd (“TTL Leasing”), which is in the business of granting loans for the renewal of COEs. These loans are secured by bills of sale relating to the motor vehicles and by personal guarantees. In addition to charging its clients interest on the loans, TTL Leasing requires them to pay an additional sum of $500 for each vehicle in respect of which a loan has been given for the extension of its COE.

4 From June to August 2000, Mdm Lim went several times to TTL Leasing’s office to borrow a total sum of $279,888, which was secured by 33 bills of sale executed by her with respect to her motor vehicles. Mr Lim guaranteed the repayment of the loans extended to his wife.

5 Under s 10 of the Bills of Sale Act (Cap 24, 1985 Rev Ed), a bill of sale must be attested by an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court and registered. For convenience, TTL Leasing had a standing arrangement with the respondent for the purpose of complying with s 10 of the said Act. Out of the $500 that TTL Leasing collected from its clients for each motor vehicle in respect of which a loan was given, the respondent was paid $50. The respondent attested that he witnessed the execution of 33 bills of sale by Mdm Lim and that he gave the requisite explanation of the effect thereof to her. He also signed the guarantee papers, stating that he witnessed the execution of the same by Mr Lim.

6 Subsequently, disputes arose between Mdm Lim and TTL Leasing and in June 2001, TTL Leasing seized Mdm Lim’s vehicles after she failed to effect instalment payments on time. According to Mdm Lim, she decided to stop paying the instalments after she discovered that TTL Leasing had cheated her by inflating the COE charges for her vehicles. The complainants sought legal advice on their position vis-à-vis TTL Leasing from their lawyers, who advised them that the bills of sale would be unenforceable unless they were executed before an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court. Both the complainants then claimed through their lawyers in a letter to TTL Leasing on 27 July 2001 that the respondent was not present when the relevant bills of sale were executed. They wanted the respondent to confirm that this was the case. As such, on 29 August 2001, the complainants barged into the respondent’s office without an appointment to question him. They brought with them a tape recorder and secretly taped their conversation in the hope that the respondent might admit that he was not present when the bills of sale in question were executed. However, the respondent made no such admission and this led the complainants to call the police to come to the respondent’s office. When the police arrived, the respondent informed them that the complainants had a problem with TTL Leasing.

7 On 6 November 2001, the complainants wrote to the Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and alleged that TTL Leasing had cheated them of $2,000 in relation to Land Transport Authority fees and that the latter had repossessed their vehicles.

8 On 6 December 2001, the complainants wrote their first letter to the Law Society, asking how they could recover the legal fees that they had paid to TTL Leasing. After finding out that the Law Society could not assist them in the recovery of their money from TTL Leasing, they finally lodged a complaint against the respondent in an undated letter sent on 31 January 2002. After investigating the matter, the Law Society was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the respondent to appear before its Disciplinary Committee (“DC”).

The Disciplinary Committee’s decision

9 At the hearing before the DC, the charges against the respondent that are relevant to the present proceedings were as follows:

Charge No. 1

That you, Lim Cheong Peng, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) in that you, in or around the period of 29 June to 30 August 2000, purported to attest to the execution of certain Bills of Sale by a Mdm Lim Tok Wah in favour of a company known as TTL Leasing and explain to her the effect of the Bills of Sale when you did not in fact do so.

Amended Charge No. 2

That you, Lim Cheong Peng, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) in that you, in or around the period of 29 June to 30 August 2000, purported to witness the execution of certain Letters of Guarantee by a Mr Lim Then Hock in favour of a company known as TTL Leasing when you did not in fact do so.

10 The respondent admitted that he could not confirm whether or not he attended to the complainants as the events took place five years ago. However, he said that he must have attended to them as he had a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for the execution of bills of sale, which he adhered to without exception. Under his SOP, once TTL Leasing had approved a client’s application, he would be called upon to attest the execution of the relevant bill of sale either at his office or at TTL Leasing’s office. When attending to the execution of a bill of sale, he would go through the terms of the bill with the borrower and would thus be present when the bill was executed.

11 After a three-day hearing, the DC was satisfied that Mdm Lim and Mr Lim had executed the bills of sale and guarantees in the respondent’s absence. The DC found the respondent guilty of grossly improper conduct within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act and decided that there was sufficient cause for disciplinary action against him under the Legal Profession Act.

The court’s view

12 At the outset, it is worth reiterating that the Law Society bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The position was put as follows in Re an Advocate and Solicitor [1978–1979] SLR 240 at 249, [21], by A P Rajah J:

A charge under [the Legal Profession Act] is a serious charge and if found proved could...