LAW401: The Court of Appeal has Directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court: Ethical Legal Practice and Client Care Assignment, SUSS, Singapore

Question

The Court of Appeal has directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to refer a matter, concerning Lawyer A, to the Council of the Law Society of Singapore, for it to determine whether it should refer the matter to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel under section 85(2) of the Legal Profession Act to inquire into Lawyer A’s conduct. Lawyer A has approached you for advice.

Lawyer A informs you as follows:

Lawyer A is a litigation lawyer of about 7 years’ standing. His area of practice is mainly in motor accidents, work injury compensation, and personal injury claims. His main client is an insurance company, XYZ Insurance Ltd.

The case in question concerns a workplace injury claim by a Myanmar foreign worker (“the Plaintiff”). The Plaintiff was injured at his workplace, and he sued his employers (“the Defendant”) to seek compensation. The insurers for the Defendant is XYZ Insurance Ltd (“the insurers”), and they had instructed Lawyer A to act for the Defendant in the defence of the claim.

After the injury, the Plaintiff was unable to work. Hence, he was unable to maintain his Singapore work permit and had to return to Myanmar.

The parties had attempted to negotiate a settlement throughout the course of the proceedings but were unsuccessful. In the end, the Plaintiff had to fly back to Singapore for the purpose of attending and giving evidence at trial. Parties were only able to reach a settlement on the first day of the trial.

The parties had agreed that the Plaintiff would bear 20% liability, whilst the Defendant would bear 80% liability. Quantum for damages was agreed at $80,000.00. Accordingly, a consent judgment was entered against the Defendant for damages of $80,000.00, with costs and disbursements to be agreed or taxed.¹

The parties were able to agree on costs, but they were unable to agree on the disbursements. The insurers took issue with the Plaintiff’s claim for travel expenses of $1,800.00 (for air ticket and land transport expenses). The insurers told Lawyer A that, for the past 3 years, XYZ Insurance Ltd had to disburse over $2 million per year on travel expenses claims alone. The management of XYZ Insurance Ltd wants to put a stop to this, and instructed Lawyer A to resist the Plaintiff’s claim for disbursements “at all costs”.

Pursuant to the insurer’s instructions, Lawyer A filed an application for the taxation of the disbursements.² The taxing Registrar at first instance ruled in favour of the Defendant and held that such expenses were not claimable. The Plaintiff appealed, and the District Judge reversed the Registrar’s decision. Lawyer A then appealed to the High Court. The High Court affirmed the District Judge’s decision that the travel expenses were claimable, and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal. Lawyer A, therefore, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

At the hearing before the Court of Appeal, Lawyer A was reprimanded for the manner he (and his client) had conducted the case, which was a straightforward matter. The Court of Appeal later became aware of Lawyer A’s bill to the insurers which was in excess of $200,000.00 and was troubled by it. Hence, the referral to the Law Society for an inquiry.

Advise Lawyer A in terms of breaches of his professional obligations to his client(s) and to the court, if any. In your advice to Lawyer A, you must, amongst other things, consider and refer to the recent case of Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395.

You are required to state your total word count at the end of your assignment.

You will be assessed on your ability to:

• express your views clearly and concisely
• refer to the relevant case law, principles, rules, and statutes
• discuss the arguments cogently and thoroughly
• arrive at a seamless and logical conclusion