Law Society of Singapore v Lim Yee Kai

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 04 January 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 4
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1358 of 1997,Originating Summons No 1114 of
• Date: 04 January 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2001
• Plaintiff Counsel: M Sivakumar and Prakash P Mulani (Azman Soh Murugaiyan)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 4
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent absent
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether Legal Profession (Solicitors' Account) Rules contravened,Show cause action,Whether misappropriation of clients' moneys, amount to grossly improper conduct in discharge of professional duty,Failure to maintain proper clients' accounts,Grossly improper conduct in discharge of professional duties,s 83(2)(b) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed),Appropriate sanction,Legal Profession

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court): In these proceedings before us, the abovenamed, Lim Yee Kai, (`the respondent`), an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, was ordered, upon application by the Law Society of Singapore (`the Law Society`) under s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) (`the Act`), to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the provisions of s 83 of the Act. No cause was shown, and at the conclusion of the hearing, we made an order that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court. We now give our reasons.

Background

The respondent was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors on 11 April 1990. At all material times, he was practising under the name and style of YK Lim and Company (`the firm`) at 1557 Keppel Road, Block B, [num ]02-24, Cantonment Central, Singapore 089066.

One Mr Thomas Loh Chong Yong (`Mr Loh`) joined the firm with effect from 17 September 1996. The arrangement between the two of them was that Mr Loh would not be a partner of the firm, although he was designated as a `partner`, and that Mr Loh was to pay the respondent 15% of the income that he (Mr Loh) would bring to the firm through his own efforts. Under the arrangement, Mr Loh was not responsible for any of the firm`s accounts, although as a matter of convenience, he was a signatory for the purpose of operating both the office and client`s accounts.

In November 1997, Mr Loh discovered that the client`s account of the firm was overdrawn to the sum of $155,731.79. In fact, there should have been a credit of $261,242.33, being the total amount of stakeholder funds placed with the firm. The total sum that was missing from the client`s account was $416,974.12. Mr Loh confronted the respondent, who admitted that he took the moneys from the client`s account for various purposes of his own.

Subsequently, on 19 November 1997, Mr Loh made a report to the Commercial Affairs Department (`CAD`) about a possible breach of trust on the respondent`s part. He also informed the Law Society of the same matter by way of a letter dated 20 November 1997.

The Law Society`s investigations

Arising from the letter from Mr Loh, the Council of the Law Society (`the Council`) on the same day resolved to intervene in the firm`s practice pursuant to s 74 of the Act and paras 1(1)(a) and 6 of the First Schedule thereto, on the ground that the Council had reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the respondent in connection with his practice. On 21 November 1997, the Law Society served on the respondent and Mr Loh notices respectively to the effect that the Council had resolved to intervene in their partnership and their client`s accounts. The notices also contained a request to them to deliver up all the firm`s books of accounts, details of the bank accounts and a list of persons who were beneficially entitled to the moneys in the client`s account. The respondent then delivered some documents relating to the firm`s accounts pursuant to this request. From these documents and an investigation carried out, the Council found that for the year 1997, the accounting records and books required under paras (1)-(4) of r 11 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors` Accounts) Rules, namely:

(a) Cash books, receipt cash book and payment cash book;

(b) General ledger;

(c) Clients` ledger;

(d) Journals;

(e) Reconciliation Statements;

(f) Record of all dealings with clients` money; and

(g) Bank statement,

were not kept and maintained by the respondent. The respondent therefore had failed to comply with these Rules.

Subsequently, on 6 December 1997, the Law Society applied by way of OS 1358/97 for an order under s 27B(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. On 15 January 1998, the court ordered that the practising certificate of the respondent be suspended and that the Law Society refer the respondent`s conduct to a Disciplinary Committee for investigation pursuant to s 85(3)(b) of the Act.

The CAD`s investigations

In the meantime, the CAD had commenced investigations on the complaint made by Mr Loh. The results of the investigations showed that the respondent had committed several acts of misappropriation of funds from the client`s account of the firm, the details of which were as follows:

(a) Four cheques drawn for the total amount of $235,300 were deposited into the respondent`s personal bank account, for the purpose of clearing cheques which he had drawn from this personal account in favour of one William Thia. The respondent was supposed to represent Mr Thia in a bankruptcy petition but was negligent and Mr Thia was consequently adjudged a bankrupt. The cheques issued from the respondent`s personal account were for the purpose of discharging the bankruptcy order against Mr Thia. The balance of the moneys was used to pay the respondent`s credit card bills.

(b) Two cheques drawn for the total amount of $23,664.92 were issued to M/s Chan Kam Foo & Associates, who were the opposing solicitors in a suit. Judgment was obtained against the respondent`s client due to his negligence. One cheque to the amount of $13,742.92 was used to make payment to Chan Kam Foo & Associates while another cheque to the amount of $9,922 was used towards the satisfaction of the taxed costs and expenses under a sale and seizure in respect of the same suit.

(c) Three cheques drawn for the total amount of $45,000 were used to make personal loans to one Mr Hung Sai Khoon.

(d) One cheque drawn for the...