Harry Elias Partnership LLP represents Law Society of Singapore in first Champerty case in 35 years

Champerty – when a lawyer agrees to help a client on the basis that he gets a share of the proceeds from a case if it is successful – is currently forbidden in Singapore although it has been decriminalized or abandoned in several Western jurisdictions. However in countries such as Hong Kong, champerty remains both a crime and civil wrong. The traditional rationale is that champertous arrangements would tempt the champertous maintainer to subvert the course of justice and our Courts have stated that it remains a fact that the champertous maintainer would face a potential and acute conflict of interest. 

The case against Kurubulan, who has been admitted to practice in Singapore for 15 years, stems from a 2006 written fee agreement he had drafted and entered into with a client, Ho Shin Hwee, to bring a lawsuit in Queensland, Australia (where champerty is prohibited under their Legal Profession Act), over horrific injuries Ho had suffered in an automobile accident there. The Singaporean lawyer agreed to help her in the case, in exchange for 40 percent of any settlement or award over A$300,000. The Singapore lawyer then approached an Australian firm, which was not remunerated on the same basis, to act for her there.

Subsequently, Ho reached a settlement with the insurer for A$3.25 million in 2011, after which Kurubulan sought to demand and collect about A$1.2 million (S$1.4 million) from her. This is despite the fact that Kurubalan had issued a bill of professional costs in the sum of only S$156,487. When Ho refused to pay him A$1.2 million, the lawyer threatened civil proceedings and even hinted that criminal charges could be brought against her. She was therefore compelled to bring a complaint against Kurubulan to the Law Society of Singapore.

Kurubulan was charged with breaching Section 107 of Singapore’s Legal Profession Act, for having entered into a champertous agreement, amounting to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. He pleaded guilty to the charge at the hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal. The matter then came before Singapore’s Court of Three Judges for sentencing, and the Court suspended him from practice for six months. Notably, the Court held that champertous conduct by Singapore Advocates and Solicitors does not cease to be wrong even when the litigation in question proceeds in a foreign court. The Court also made timely and helpful comments with regard to lawyers representing impecunious clients and their access to justice.

The Law Society of Singapore was represented by Philip Fong and Kirsten Teo of Harry Elias Partnership LLP.

This case was reported in both The Straits Times and The American Lawyer.