lss_dt_reports_version: 24

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
24 24 1 1049 In the Matter of Chan Chun Hwee Allan Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Chan Chun Hwee Allan Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) has determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The disciplinary proceedings were brought by the Law Society against the Respondent for breach of ethical and professional standards that were expected of the Respondent as an advocate and solicitor. The gravamen of the charges related to the Respondent’s rendering of excessive bills to one of his clients’. The said client filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Law Society on 12 October 2015, which led to the present proceedings. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent at the onset of the proceedings: 1st Charge “You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that you, on or about 8 September 2014, at 133 New Bridge Road, #14-06 Chinatown Point, Singapore 059413, did charge your client a total fee of $32,768.20 (including $268.20 for disbursements) for work done by you as his solicitor for the period 7 August 2013 to 8 September 2014, as evidenced by your Bill No.1582/14 dated 8 September 2014, which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what you were reasonably entitled to charge for the services rendered to your client, and such overcharging by you amounts to a breach of Rule 38 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (“PCR”), and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act as amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.” 2nd Charge “You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that you, on or about 24 April 2015, at 133 New Bridge Road, #14-06 Chinatown Point, Singapore 059413, did charge your client a total fee of $72,063.80 (including $563.80 for disbursements) for work done by you as his solicitor for the period 7 August 2013 to 8 September 2014, as evidenced by your Bill of Costs No. FC/BC11/2015 dated 24 April 2015, which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what you were reasonably entitled to charge for the services rendered to your client, and such overcharging by you amounts to a breach of Rule 38 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, and you have thereby breached a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act as amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.” Additionally, an alternative 2nd charge was tendered against the Respondent citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession. At the onset of the disciplinary proceedings, the Respondent contended that both charges were against the rule of duplicity as they were related to overcharging for the same set of work done. He contended that only the 1st Charge should be considered by the DT. However, the DT determined that both charges were related to separate and distinct acts. While the 1st charge was related to his invoice, the 2nd charge was related to the Bill of Costs presented for taxation instead. Findings by the DT Whilst the DT was of the view that there had been breaches of Rule 38 of the PCR as per both charges, the DT did not consider these breaches as amounting to grossly improper conduct on the part of the Respondent. Otherwise, the DT accepted the Respondent’s explanation and found that the nature of the errors relating to the wrongful inclusion of items in the Bill of Costs pointed to an oversight rather than deceit. Moreover, this was the presentation of a Bill of Costs, and not the presentation of an invoice, so it is an act one step removed from requiring payment by the Complainant and hence an act one step removed from bringing pressure to bear on him to pay the bill. Although the breaches did not amount to grossly improper conduct, the DT found the Respondent’s conduct unsatisfactory and that the alternative 2nd charge set out below was made out. Alternative 2nd Charge “You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that you, on or about 24 April 2015, at 133 New Bridge Road, #14-06 Chinatown Point, Singapore 059413, did charge your client a total fee of $72,063.80 (including $563.80 for disbursements) for work done by you as his solicitor for the period 7 August 2013 to 8 September 2014, as evidenced by your Bill of Costs No. FC/BC11/2015 dated 24 April 2015, which fee was far in excess of and disproportionate to what you were reasonably entitled to charge for the services rendered to your client, and further, in which Bill of Costs, you included items which you are not legally entitled to claim fees for work done and such conduct by you amounts to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.” Given the said circumstances, the DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. Further, the DT ordered the Respondent to bear the costs of these proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed. The Council’s Decision Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council agreed with the determination of the DT and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $5,000.     2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/ In the Matter of Chan Chun Hwee Allan Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/ e10583f786416ce8a2659c0bb11365b65d9b71c4

Links from other tables