- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 9,185
- Points
- 83
The Straits Times
Friday, Nov 09, 2012
SINGAPORE - A lawyer who agreed to accept payment from an accident victim only if he won her court suit has pleaded guilty to professional misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal, in a rare case.
Mr R. Kurubalan, 55, made the deal with Madam Ho Shin Hwee in 2006, in which he would receive 30 per cent of the proceeds if she won less than A$300,000, and 40 per cent if she won more.
The case was investigated by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice, which decided that the misconduct was serious enough to be referred to the Court of Three Judges - the legal profession's highest disciplinary body.
This means Mr Kurubalan could be suspended, fined or struck off.
Lawyers in Singapore are not allowed to charge clients on a percentage basis depending on whether the case is successful.
In the past, the Law Society has made clear that this practice, called champerty, is forbidden.
But several other countries such as the United States have recognised this method of charging, also known as the contingency fee system. And the concept has been the subject of review and debate.
The tribunal, made up of Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon and lawyer Joy Tan, released its findings on Tuesday, in what is believed to be the first such case in more than a decade.
Madam Ho retained Mr Kurubalan to pursue the claim for a car accident in Brisbane in 2003, which left her paralysed.
Mr Kurubalan liaised with lawyers in Queensland, and paid upfront for expenses that included a trip to Australia with Madam Ho and her mother.
The Australian lawyers brokered and settled the suit for Madam Ho for about A$3.25 million (S$4.15 million) in March last year.
In August last year, they transferred the sum to her bank account and Mr Kurubalan later became aware of the transfer.
Two months later, he billed $156,487 to the Queensland lawyers for professional fees and other expenses in relation to his work on Madam Ho's claim.
He also sought to claim the 40 per cent from Madam Ho, which came up to $1.6million. But she complained to the Law Society, triggering the probe.
Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah argued for Mr Kurubalan before the disciplinary tribunal, saying Mr Kurubalan had helped Madam Ho to succeed in her suit and get a better deal than expected.
Madam Ho admitted that she complained because she did not know she would be awarded such a large sum and the lawyer would be able to charge such high fees.
Had Mr Kurubalan lost, he would have got nothing, despite spending about $15,000.
He said in mitigation that he would not have chosen this fee arrangement if he could turn back the clock.
Lawyers Philip Fong and Kirsten Teo prosecuted the case for the Law Society before the tribunal.
