Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeKarthigesu JA
Judgment Date15 March 1999
Neutral Citation[1999] SGHC 61
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 1331 of
Date15 March 1999
Year1999
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselTan Jee Ming and Parambir Singh (Tan Jee Ming & Partners)
Citation[1999] SGHC 61
Defendant CounselRichard Ang and Raymond Yeo (Koh Ong & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether mere censure suffice with no element of dishonesty,Show cause action,Suspension,Objective intention of contracting parties to determine the terms,Rules of construction,Appropriate form of disciplinary action,ss 83(1), 83(2)(e) & 98 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161),Contractual terms,Legal Profession,Whether payment by lawyer to management agent is service fee or commission,Contract
Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): This was an application under s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) to make absolute an order to show cause pursuant to the Disciplinary Committee`s determination that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 83 of the Act to be taken against the respondent.

2. The facts

The respondent is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of eight years` standing, having been called to the Bar on 13 February 1991. At all material times, he was practising as a sole proprietor under the name `M/s Lau & Co`.

3.The present disciplinary proceedings arose out of a complaint made to the Law Society of Singapore (`the Law Society`) by New Start International Trading Pte Ltd (`New Start`), a company engaged in the business of marketing and selling overseas residential and commercial property to local and regional purchasers. The facts which were undisputed by both the Law Society and the respondent were as follows.

4.Shijiazhuang Fuqiao Real Estate Development Co Ltd (`Fuqiao`) is the developer of a project in China known as the No 1 China Small Commodities Market in Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, People`s Republic of China (`the project`). In May 1994, Fuqiao orally requested New Start to act for it in relation to the project. As part of its services to Fuqiao, New Start was required to source for the services of a law firm in Singapore to witness and arrange for the authentication of sale and purchase agreements between Fuqiao and the purchasers of the shop units in the project.

5.New Start approached a few law firms here, including the respondent`s firm, for a quotation of the likely fees involved for such work. The respondent drafted an agreement dated 3 June 1995 between his firm and New Start, which was accepted by the latter and signed on its behalf by its General Manager, Yi Jianmin (`Yi`). This agreement was later replaced by another agreement dated 5 June 1995, which was likewise executed by Yi on New Start`s behalf. The second agreement was identical to the first agreement in all aspects, save that it specified Fuqiao as the developer of the project. For the purposes of these proceedings, it was the agreement dated 5 June 1995 (`the agreement`) which was material.

6.The agreement stated that subject to the appointment of the respondent by Fuqiao as its solicitor for the project, New Start would provide `consultancy and management service` to the respondent `in view of [its] knowledge and familiarity of the locality of the [project]`. In return, the respondent would pay the company: (i). $108 out of the proposed legal fee of $360 for every sale and purchase agreement for a shop unit in the project;

(ii). in the case of a sale and purchase agreement for ten or more shop units, 0.18% of the total purchase value of the shop units out of the proposed legal fee of 0.6% of the total purchase value.

In both instances, New Start would receive a sum equivalent to 30% of the respondent`s legal fees. The sum was expressly described as a `service fee` and was stated to be payable only `upon full receipt of our full legal costs and disbursement [sic]`. It was emphasised that the respondent would treat the `service fee` as a disbursement, and not as part of his legal costs for witnessing the sale and purchase agreements. The agreement was also marked `without prejudice` and contained a provision precluding its disclosure to any party without the respondent`s consent.

7.Through the efforts of New Start, the respondent was appointed as Fuqiao`s solicitor for the project. Subsequently, by a letter dated 14 August 1995, the respondent informed New Start that he was rescinding the agreement with it.

8.On 22 August 1995, the project was launched. Fuqiao appointed a local property company, M/s ERA Realty Pte Ltd (`ERA`), as its agents for the sale of the project in Singapore. The respondent continued to act for Fuqiao. The legal fees which he charged remained at $360 for each sale and purchase agreement for not more than ten shop units, and at 0.6% of the total purchase price for each sale and purchase agreement for more than ten shop units.

9.On 4 April 1996, a letter of demand was issued by New Start`s solicitors, M/s Lee & Lee, to the respondent claiming the `service fee` stipulated in the agreement. This was followed by a written complaint from New Start to the Law Society dated 6 June 1996, which centred on `the conduct of M/s Lau & Co, in proposing the said payment of the agreed service fee to us and subsequently reneging on the same`.

10.Pursuant to New Start`s complaint, the Law Society brought the following charge against the respondent:

You, Jeffrey Lau See-Jin are charged that you on or about 5 June 1995, in Singapore, while acting as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, entered into an agreement with M/s New Start International Trading Pte Ltd whereby, upon the said M/s New Start International Trading Pte Ltd successfully procuring your employment as an Advocate and Solicitor acting for M/s Shijiazhuang Fuqiao Real Estate Development Co Ltd for their development project known as No 1 China Small Commodities Market Nansantiao Market, Shijiazhaung City, you agreed to pay to the said M/s New Start International Trading Pte Ltd:

(1) a sum of $108.00 for each sale and purchase agreement, in respect of the individual shop units in the said development project entered into between developers and any purchaser(s), upon full receipt of your full legal costs and disbursements of $360.00; and

(2) in the event of a sale and purchase agreement entered into between the developers and any purchaser(s) involving ten or more shop units, a sum equivalent to 0.18% of the total purchase value upon full receipt of your legal costs and disbursements of 0.6% of the said total purchase value

and you have thereby contravened s 83(2)(e) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

Section 83(2)(e) of the Act prohibits an advocate and solicitor from, inter alia, procuring the employment of himself through or by the instruction of any person to whom he has given or has agreed or promised to give remuneration for obtaining such employment.

The proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee

11. The Law Society`s case

Before the Disciplinary Committee, the Law Society`s case was that the sum which the respondent was to pay to New Start under the agreement was a commission. Yi, who was the only witness for the Law Society, gave evidence in support of this contention.

12.Yi testified that pursuant to New Start`s undertaking to provide services to Fuqiao in relation to the project, he approached a law firm in Singapore for a quotation of the likely legal fees which would be charged for authenticating and witnessing sale and purchase agreements. As he found the fees quoted by this law firm rather high, he decided to look for another law firm, and obtained the telephone number of the respondent`s firm from the Yellow Pages.

13.Yi called the respondent`s firm on 2 June 1995 and spoke to the respondent about the project as well as the legal services which Fuqiao required. The respondent expressed great interest in the project and indicated that his legal fees would be rather competitive. He stated that he would charge $360 for each sale and purchase agreement which he witnessed, and that for a sale and purchase agreement relating to ten or more shop units, he would charge 0.6% of the total purchase price of the shop units. He then told Yi that if New Start was able to introduce him to Fuqiao, he would pay the company a `commission` of 30% out of his legal fees - that is, for purchases of not more than ten shop units, he would pay New Start $108, whilst for purchases of ten or more shop units, he would pay New Start 0.18% of the total purchase price of the shop units. The terms proposed by the respondent during this telephone conversation were subsequently reduced into writing in the agreement, with the `commission` promised to New Start being described as a `service fee`. When Yi asked the respondent why the word `service fee` was used in the agreement instead of `commission`, he was told that there was no difference to New Start whichever term was used.

14.On or about 5 June 1995, the respondent was appointed as Fuqiao`s solicitor for the project. Yi testified that the work which the respondent had to do for Fuqiao was very simple. In essence, the respondent had to make alterations, if any were needed, to the sale and purchase agreements prepared by Fuqiao`s lawyers in China, witness the signing of these agreements by Fuqiao and the purchasers in Singapore, and deliver the documents to the relevant authorities in China. Yi stated that there was in fact no need for any sort of consultancy service to be provided by New Start to the respondent which would facilitate the latter`s work for Fuqiao.

15. The respondent`s case

In contrast, the respondent`s case before the Disciplinary Committee was that the sum of money payable under the agreement was a service fee, and not a commission in return for New Start`s procuring his employment by Fuqiao.

16.According to the respondent, in late April/ early May 1995, he was contacted by one Luo Liyang (`Luo`), who was the Managing Director of New Start at that time. She asked him for a quotation of the likely legal fees which would be charged for conveyancing work in relation to the project. He indicated a rough figure of about $250 and suggested that Luo meet him in his office to discuss the matter further. The meeting took place on 2 June 1995. On that occasion, Luo proposed that New Start would help the respondent to do the supporting work for the project in return for payment of $108 for each sale and purchase agreement which he handled. This figure was arrived at based on a charge of $100 for the services to be provided by New Start...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Law Society of Singapore v Bay Puay Joo Lilian
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 décembre 2007
    ...[1999] 2 SLR 542 (folld) How Poh Sun v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 270; [1991] SLR 220 (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey [1999] 1 SLR (R) 724; [1999] 2 SLR 215 (distd) Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh [2001] 1 SLR (R) 197; [2001] 2 SLR 80 (distd) Law Society of Singapor......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye Dave
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 novembre 2006
    ...of this court in Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel ([14] supra at [14]); Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey [1999] 2 SLR 215 at [39]; and (most recently) Law Society of Singapore v Vardan Vasantha Lakshmi [2006] SGHC 185 at 25 Mr Patel also argued that the respondent wa......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 octobre 1999
    ... ... In Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey [1999] 2 SLR 215 , it was categorically laid down that disciplinary action under s 83 of the LPA serves three functions, namely (a) ... ...
  • Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 août 2003
    ...dishonesty, he will almost invariably be struck off the roll: v Law Society [1994] 2 All ER 486 and Law Society v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey [1999] 2 SLR 215. Even where a solicitor did not act dishonestly, but if by his conduct he is shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 décembre 2001
    ...in Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel[1999] 1 SLR 696 at 699—700 (see also Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey[1999] 2 SLR 215 at 227) and numerous other cases, three objectives of disciplinary sentencing, namely: (a) punishment of the solicitor for the default; (b) deter......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT