Disciplinary Tribunal Reports
Pursuant to section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.
This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
In the Matter of Syn Kok Kay (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
- These proceedings arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) against the Respondent.
- The Respondent was engaged by the Complainant between 2015 and 2019 in connection with High Court Suit No. 992 of 2015 (the Suit). The Respondent practised as a sole proprietor of M/S Patrick Chin Syn & Co (the Firm) at all material times.
- The following charges were preferred against the Respondent:
First Charge
For grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act by charging the Complainant an aggregate sum of $1,340,000 for work rendered by the Firm between 2015 and 2019 in connection with the Suit, which was in far excess of and disproportionate to what he was reasonably entitled to charge
Second Charge
For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act for wrongfully failing to comply with an Order of Court of the High Court to deliver the Firm’s bill of costs of work done by the Firm for the Complainant in respect of the Suit for taxation within 14 days.
Third Charge
For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act for retaining a sum of S$1,052,000, which was the difference between the sums of money that the Firm collected under the bills issued to the Complainant for work done in respect of the Suit and the sum of $288,000 that was subsequently assessed in taxation proceedings by the High Court as the value of the work done for the Suit.
- The Respondent pleaded guilty to the First, Second, and Third Charges.
Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), Council’s Sanctions
- The DT found that the First and Second Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the LPA for referral to the Court of Three Judges.
- The DT found that the Third Charge was made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the LPA. The DT further recommended that the Respondent be reprimanded in respect of the Third Charge. The DT made no order as costs.
- Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the LPA, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings. The Council reprimanded the Respondent in respect of the Third Charge.
Findings of Court of Three Judges
- The Court of Three Judges (the Court) found that there was due cause in respect of the First and Second Charges for the Respondent to be sanctioned under section 83(1) of the Act. The Court ordered that he be suspended for three years and nine months, with the period of suspension commencing upon his discharge from his bankruptcy, and that he pay costs to the Law Society at $10,000.00.
The Court’s grounds of decision may be viewed here.
To access the full report, click here.
