Re Chan Chow Wang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1983
• Neutral Citation: [1983] SGHC 4
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 26 of 1982
• Date: 22 March 1983
• Year: 1983
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: TQ Lim (TQ Lim & Co)
• Citation: [1983] SGHC 4
• Defendant Counsel: J Grimberg (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application for reinstatement premature,Legal Profession,s 102 Legal Profession Act (Cap 217),Advocate struck off the Roll for almost nine years by local court but continued to practise in Malaysia until November 1979,Admission,Advocate struck off the Roll for champerty and fraud,Restoration to roll of advocates and solicitors

Mr Chan Chow Wang, a barrister having been called to the Bar on 21 November 1967 was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 9 October 1968 and from that date practised in Singapore until 22 November 1974. He practised in Singapore first as a legal assistant and from 1 August 1970 practised on his own. On 8 August 1969 he was also admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.

On 22 November 1974 the High Court of Singapore ordered that Mr Chan Chow Wang be struck off the Roll of advocates and solicitors which is kept by the Registrar pursuant to s 28(3) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act). On 29 March 1979 he was disbarred by the Senate of the Inns of Court. On 17 November 1979 he was struck off the Roll of advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.

He now moves under s102 of the Act for an order that his name be replaced on the Roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court. The Law Society of Singapore has placed before the court a report as required by s 102(3). The report discloses that the applicant was struck off the Roll because he had been found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee and the High Court of (1) grossly improper conduct in entering into a champertous agreement with a Mdm Seah Huay to accept as his fee 10% of any damages recovered in the event of success; (2) of fraudulent conduct in representing to Mdm Seah Huay that the insurers of the employers of her son had offered to pay $3,300 as damages instead of $4,000 actually offered; and (3) of fraudulent conduct in deducting from the amount paid to him by the insurers the sum of $1,000 without disclosing this to the client.

The Law Society`s report also discloses that there were two other complaints against the applicant to be heard and investigated by two Disciplinary Committees appointed in June 1973 and that these two matters are still pending. However, we have not been told the nature of these two complaints.

In support of his application the applicant has filed 17 affidavits of trustworthy persons, many of whom are members of the legal profession here and in Malaysia, who testify that since his disbarment his conduct and character have been beyond reproach. The applicant has also in his own affidavit shown that he has been truly penitent.

In principle, sentences of exclusion from the legal profession need not be exclusive forever. On the other hand, the court has a duty to perform to the suitors of the court and...