Re Lau Liat Meng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 29 May 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 147
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 446 of 1991
• Date: 29 May 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: AC Fergusson and Leslie Phua (AC Fergusson)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 147
• Defendant Counsel: Woo Tchi Chu (Robert WH Wang & Woo)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Overcharging,Grossly improper conduct,Professional conduct,Whether amounting to grossly improper conduct,s 83 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed)

Judgment:

Coram: Yong Pung How CJ Lai Kew Chai J F A Chua J

< Delivered by: Yong Pung How CJ >

Cur Adv Vult

JUDGMENT

The respondent is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court who was admitted to the bar on 9 March 1962. He founded the firm of Lau Liat Meng & Co in 1964 and is now the sole proprietor practising mainly in mortgages, conveyances and loans. Over the last 20 years before these proceedings, he had handled less than 20 estate matters.

2 The facts which led to the present proceedings as set out in the Law Society's statement of case were as follows. On or about 24 July 1989 the respondent was instructed by one Madam Chang Ka Geck ("Chang") to act in the winding up of the estate of Tan Joon Tat deceased, the husband of Chang, who died in Singapore on 3 July 1989. The respondent accepted the instructions and made an application for a grant of letters of administration in Probate No 1462 of 1989. Letters of administration were granted to Chang on 2 October 1989 and were issued on 16 December 1989, the deputy commissioner of estate duties having certified that no estate duty was payable in respect of the property of the deceased. According to the estate duty affidavit the assets of the estate were as follows:-

ASSETS

$

(a) Post Office Savings Bank A/C No 067-04262-0 2,694.05

(b) Refund due from Housing & Development Board being deposit for the purchase of a flat under sales registration number MT543059C/690552H9,000.00

(c) Sole-proprietorship business known as "Yong Choon Trading Co" including inter alia A/C No 0149-042996-001 at Hong Kong Bank54,427.01

(d) Central Provident Fund balance 1,773.47 ------------ 68,394.53 ------------

Property in respect of which the grant was not to be made

(e) Insurance Policy No 1088309-7 with The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd10,651.20

(f) Policy No Q51-208927-6 with American International Assurance Co Ltd 15,000.00

(g) Policies with NTUC Co-operative Insurance Commonwealth Enterprise Ltd: No 6104635-914,522.05 No 6186110-721,000.00 $129,567.78

3 The respondent was not concerned with the property in respect of which the grant was not to be made, as the monies under the various insurance policies had been released directly to Chang by the companies. Chang also instructed the respondent to arrange the transfer to her of the deceased's residential premises at Block 433 No 1403K, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Singapore, Lease No I/HB 16043B. These premises were held by the deceased and Chang as joint tenants, and the lease was duly transferred to Chang as sole proprietor. Chang required the respondent to act expeditiously at all stages of the proceedings and it was accepted that the respondent did so act.

4 The respondent rendered his bill No 1056/1989 dated 19 December 1989 in the sum of $23,000 as fees for professional services rendered and $604.60 as disbursements. Chang was dissatisfied with the amount of the bill and arranged for Andy Teo, the friend who had originally introduced her to the respondent, to complain on her behalf to the respondent about the bill and to ask for a reduction. As a result of the complaint made by Andy Teo on Chang's behalf the respondent agreed to reduce the professional fees of $23,000 by 5% to $21,850 with the disbursements remaining unchanged at $604.60. This reduction failed to satisfy Chang who, after settling the bill, wrote to the Law Society on 2 January 1990 concerning the amount of the bill.

5 There is no scale of costs or guidelines issued by the Law Society for solicitors' remuneration for work done in applying for legal representation to the estate of a deceased person. As a result of her complaint against the respondent, a disciplinary committee was appointed on 30 May 1990 to hear and investigate the complaint that the respondent had overcharged Chang. An amended charge was served on the respondent on or about 28 August 1990 as follows:-

You, LAU LIAT MENG, are charged that on or about the 19th day of December 1989, at 545 Orchard Road #06-16, Far East Shopping Centre, Singapore 0923 you did charge one Madam Chang Ka Geck, Administratrix of the estate of Tan Joon Tat in an application for Letters of Administration of Tan Joon Tat, deceased, and the transfer of the deceased's residential premises Block 433 No. 1403K, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Singapore Lease No. I/HB 16043B into the name of Chang Ka Geck as surviving joint tenant as sole proprietor of the Lease for work done by you as her solicitor for a fee of $23,604.60 which was reduced to $22,454.60 on or about 21st December 1989 which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what you were entitled to charge for the services you rendered and such overcharging by you amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 80 (2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

The facts as set out in the statement of case were admitted by the respondent in his defence except that he did not consider the request to reduce the professional charges as a complaint.

6 At the hearings before the disciplinary committee, the Law Society called three witnesses, Chang, Andy Teo and a lawyer with considerable experience in estate matters, G Raman. The respondent gave evidence and called two witnesses, Chim Hou Yan and Anamah Tan. Chang and Andy Teo gave evidence of the events leading up to the complaint. Chang said that there was never any mention of a fee, nor was there any mention of an hourly rate of charge. The longest time she spent on any occasion with the respondent discussing the affairs of her late husband was about 15 minutes, on other occasions it was only for five or six minutes, and on some occasions she did not see him at all. Her evidence was supported by Andy Teo. Raman's evidence concerned the amount of work and fees involved in the case. At first, he said that he would have charged $1,500. Upon further consideration, after taking the agreed bundle of documents home to examine, he revised his estimate and said that he...