SINGAPORE: A lawyer who overcharged his shopper by about S$1 million and didn’t adjust to a court docket order has been suspended for 3 years and 9 months.
The sanction towards Mr Syn Kok Kay was handed out by the Courtroom of Three Judges in a written judgment on Tuesday (Jan 10).
Mr Syn was a lawyer for 29 years and the only proprietor of Patrick Chin Syn & Co.
Round 2015, an organization referred to as JWR engaged Mr Syn to sue lawyer Edmond Pereira and his legislation agency for skilled negligence referring to a earlier go well with, the place Mr Pereira had represented JWR.
JWR claimed S$8.9 billion within the go well with towards Mr Pereira.
Mr Syn took on the case and charged S$1.34 million in skilled charges for providers rendered to JWR from December 2015 to April 2019.
JWR paid the charges in full, however went on to hunt taxation of the billed quantity after the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the go well with towards Mr Pereira in Might 2019.
Mr Syn was ordered to ship his invoice of prices by Nov 7, 2019, however did so solely a yr later. His skilled charges have been ultimately taxed right down to S$288,000.
He didn’t return the distinction of S$1.05 million to JWR, and was declared bankrupt after JWR introduced a chapter software towards him.
He was nonetheless an undischarged bankrupt on the time of those proceedings towards him.
“UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR”
The Regulation Society of Singapore introduced fees towards Mr Syn for the overcharging and his failure to adjust to the court-ordered timeline for the supply of his invoice of prices.
The disciplinary tribunal discovered that there was explanation for ample gravity for disciplinary motion, and LawSoc utilized for Mr Syn to be sanctioned.
The Courtroom of Three Judges, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong, discovered that Mr Syn couldn’t have charged what he did in good religion.
Justice Chong, who delivered the decision on behalf of the court docket, mentioned not each occasion of overcharging would lead to due trigger for disciplinary motion.
In evaluating the gravity of the overcharging, the court docket would think about elements such because the extent of the overcharging, the solicitor’s intention throughout the interval of overcharging and the solicitor’s conduct after the overcharging.
On the seriousness of the misconduct by Mr Syn, Justice Chong mentioned: “It’s clear to us that the extent of the overcharge was egregious. A cost of S$1,340,000 for work taxed to be value S$288,000 implies that the respondent had charged over 4.65 occasions what he ought to have charged, amounting to an overcharge of S$1,052,000.”
He mentioned this could possibly be strongly inferred as unethical behaviour.
“EVASION OVER CONTRITION”
Mr Syn was represented by Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon and Ms Astrid Teo, whereas LawSoc was represented by Mr Sean Francois La’Brooy and Ms Faustina Joyce Fernando.
Throughout a earlier listening to, the judges had grilled Mr La’Brooy as to why LawSoc took the place that there was no dishonesty nor character defect on Mr Syn’s half.
Mr La’Brooy answered that LawSoc took into consideration the “totality of the circumstances” and located there was no proof of dishonesty or fraudulent intent by Mr Syn.
Senior Counsel Giam, who represented Mr Syn, advised the court docket that the case for JWR took about three-and-a-half years, with some complexity concerned.
When JWR approached Mr Syn, Mr Syn advised the corporate that it was going to value some cash. The fee was indicated to be over one million {dollars}, and it was not in dispute from the start, mentioned Senior Counsel Giam.
In mitigation, Mr Syn mentioned he genuinely believed that the charges he charged have been cheap.
This was based mostly on JWR agreeing to pay the invoices; the complexity and contentiousness of JWR’s go well with; and the truth that it went on for three-and-a-half years.
Mr Syn concluded that he spent 2,233 hours on the go well with at a cost of S$600 per hour, for a complete invoice of S$1.34 million.
The court docket mentioned it didn’t assume that Mr Syn “even actually believed that he was charging fairly”.
“It’s value noting that the respondent billed JWR at common intervals for spherical figures with none type of itemisation for his skilled charges,” mentioned Justice Chong.
“Nothing is disclosed that might remotely recommend that the respondent had a agency grasp of why he was charging what he did, not to mention that he had so charged within the perception that he was being cheap.”
He added that the “irresistible conclusion” was that Mr Syn deliberately and unethically took benefit of JWR.
After the overcharging, he delayed presenting his invoice of prices for taxation and did not make restitution.
He disposed sure belongings at key junctures within the taxation proceedings, transferring a car to his spouse for S$1 in December 2020 after submitting his first invoice of prices.
He later once more transferred a membership of the Chinese language Swimming Membership to his spouse in July 2021 for S$1.
Mr Syn claimed that he made these transfers to retain the car and membership membership for his household’s use, however the court docket discovered it extra probably that he had sought to get rid of his belongings at a major undervalue to hide his belongings from his collectors.
Whereas the court docket discovered that these belongings wouldn’t have coated the S$1.05 million, Mr Syn’s disposal of the belongings reveals that “when confronted with the results of his actions, he selected evasion over contrition”.
#asiannews #asian_news
