1. Legal fee dispute — Divorce proceedings — Validity and enforceability of two fee agreements under the Legal Profession Act 1976. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2019 MarsdenLR 3001
HIGH COURT (JOHOR BAHRU)
EVROL MARIETTE PETERS, JC
Messrs Albert Ding Lee & Partners – Plaintiff
Versus
Cho Chooi Mei – Defendant
WRIT NO: JA-22NCvC-262-12/2018
Advocates:
Ronnie Tang Pei Xin (Albert Ding, Lee & Partners) For the Plaintiff.
CW Yee (Vooi & Yee) For the Defendant.
Ronnie Tang Pei Xin (Albert Ding, Lee & Partners) For the Plaintiff.
CW Yee (Vooi & Yee) For the Defendant.
A solicitor-client fee agreement is voidable if obtained through coercion (e.g., withholding client property). Contingency fee arrangements are prohibited, and the burden of proving that a fee agreement is fair and voluntary rests on the solicitor due to their fiduciary position of active confidence.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Sections 112, 116, 118, 120 - Contracts Act 1950 - Sections 15, 19, 24 - Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 111, 114(g) - Legal fees and agreements - Validity of fee agreements in solicitor-client relationships - Where one party stands in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction rests on that party (Paras 34, 36, 38) - An agreement signed under the threat of withholding a client's property constitutes coercion under Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950, rendering the agreement voidable at the option of the aggrieved party (Paras 46, 69) - Agreements that stipulate payment as a percentage of a sum received by the client are contingency fee arrangements, which are prohibited under Section 112 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and void under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 (Paras 53, 57) - Pursuant to Section 118(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, fee agreements that are unfair or unreasonable, particularly those for vague, redundant, or exorbitant services, may be declared void (Paras 60, 67).
(B) Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - Rules 16, 35, 54 - Professional conduct - Advocates and solicitors have a fiduciary duty to uphold the interests of their clients and must refrain from abusing the confidence reposed in them for personal gain (Paras 30, 76) - A client has the right to change solicitors before the conclusion of business notwithstanding an existing agreement under Section 120 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (Para 89).
(C) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 114(g) - Adverse inference - Where a party fails to produce a key witness who is best positioned to explain the circumstances of a disputed transaction, the court may presume that such evidence would be unfavourable to the party withholding it (Paras 48, 52).
Facts of the case:
A law firm sought to enforce two agreements for legal fees. The first agreement related to divorce proceedings. The second agreement provided for a monthly fee, calculated as 6% of installments received by the client from a former spouse, in exchange for the firm ensuring compliance with a court order. The client contested the first agreement, claiming a third party was responsible for the outcome, and challenged the second agreement on grounds of coercion, lack of proficiency in the language of the contract, the prohibited nature of contingency fees, and the unreasonableness of the fees for vague services.
Findings of Court:
The first agreement was upheld as the drafting of the court order required specific legal expertise. The second agreement was found to be void and unenforceable because it was obtained through coercion (withholding a cheque), constituted a prohibited contingency fee arrangement, and the fees were unreasonable and unjustified for services that were redundant or vague. The court also found that the client was entitled to change solicitors and that the firm's refusal to consent was unreasonable.
Issues: Whether the first and second fee agreements were valid and enforceable; whether the second agreement was obtained by coercion; whether the second agreement constituted a prohibited contingency fee; and whether the client had the right to change solicitors.
Ratio Decidendi: In a solicitor-client relationship, the solicitor holds a position of trust and confidence, shifting the burden of proof to the solicitor to show that any agreement was entered into freely and is fair. Withholding a client's property to compel the signing of a contract is coercion. Agreements based on a percentage of a client's recovery are prohibited contingency fees. Legal fees must be reasonable and tied to actual services rendered; vague or exorbitant charges for redundant tasks are void.
Result: Plaintiff’s claim allowed with regard to the First Agreement; claim pursuant to the Second Agreement dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- contract law
- evidence
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claims agreements are valid and enforceable; Defendant alleges coercion, unreasonable terms, and that the second agreement constitutes a prohibited contingency fee. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
3. The second agreement was obtained via coercion, violated prohibitions on contingency fees, and provided for vague, unreasonable services, while the first agreement was validly performed. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 83 , 84 , 88 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 99 , 100 , 102 )
4. Agreements obtained through coercion are voidable; solicitor-client fee agreements must be fair and reasonable and cannot be contingency-based under the Legal Profession Act 1976. (Para 30 , 34 , 37 , 46 , 53 , 57 , 67 , 69 , 72 , 89 )
5. Claim allowed regarding the first agreement; claim pursuant to the second agreement dismissed with costs. (Para 2 , 23 , 103 )
6. Who bears the burden of proving the good faith of a transaction between a solicitor and a client?
The solicitor, who stands in a position of active confidence, bears the burden of proving the transaction was in good faith, fair, and reasonable, and that no advantage was taken of their position. (Para 30 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
7. Does withholding a client's property to compel the signing of a fee agreement constitute coercion?
Yes, the unlawful detaining of property to induce a person to enter into an agreement constitutes coercion under Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950, rendering the agreement voidable. (Para 41 , 46 , 69 )
8. Are agreements where a solicitor's fee is a percentage of a client's recovery permissible?
No, such arrangements are generally prohibited as contingency fee arrangements under Section 112 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and are void under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. (Para 53 , 54 , 57 )
9. What happens if the terms of a written legal fee agreement are deemed unfair or unreasonable?
Under Section 118(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, if the substantive terms are unfair or unreasonable, the court may declare the agreement void or order it cancelled. (Para 60 , 63 , 67 , 68 )
10. Can a client change their solicitor despite an existing fee agreement?
Yes, under Section 120 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, a client may change their advocate and solicitor before the conclusion of the business, regardless of any existing agreement. (Para 89 , 90 )
Evrol Mariette Peters JC:
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
The claim
[1]The Plaintiff’s claim is for, inter alia, the following:
a)A declaration that the two agreements between the Plaintiff and Defendant are valid, reasonable, and enforceable pursuant to sections 116 and 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“the LPA”);
b)That the Plaintiff be permitted to cash the cheque in the amount of MYR10,000 issued by Messrs Vooi & Yee to settle the balance sum owing by the Defendant, and if the cheque has lapsed, that Messrs Vooi & Yee immediately issue a new and valid cheque for the same amount;
c)The balance of the legal fees and disbursements due from the Defendant in the amount of MYR62,200, pursuant to both agreements, and Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) to be imposed on such amount due;
d)General damages/ exemplary damages in the amount of MYR20,000.
[2]I allowed the Plaintiff’s claim with regard to the First Agreement but dismissed the claim pursuant to the Second Agreement.
[3]The following are my reasons:
The brief facts
[4]The Plaintiff is a legal firm operating under the name and style of Messrs Albert Ding, Lee & Partners. In April 2017, the Defendant, an individual, sought legal advice from the Plaintiff regarding her divorce from one Wong Yoon Chong (“the former husband”). A Warrant to Act dated 11 April 2017 (the First Agreement”) (exhibited at page 15 of Part B of the Common Bundle of Documents (“CBD”)), was signed by the Defendant. There was no agreement on how much legal fees were payable when the First Agreement was signed.
[5]The divorce was, however, finalised through a Decree Nisi Order by way of consent (“the Decree Nisi Order”), that was reached on 20 April 2018, whereby the Defendant was to receive a total of MYR1.1 million from the former husband, with MYR200,000 to be paid immediately and the balance of MYR900,000 to be paid by instalments over 60 months. The Decree Nisi Order, dated 25 April 2018 is exhibited at pages 1-9 of Part A of the CBD.
[6]Pursuant to legal fees for work done up to filing the Decree Nisi Order, the Plaintiff charged the Defendant a total of MYR25,000. This is based on the undated invoice exhibited at pages 13-14 of Part B of the CBD.
[7]The Second Agreement purportedly entered between the Defendant and Albert Ding (the Managing Partner of the Plaintiff) during a meeting on 23 April 2018, was documented in a letter dated 26 April 2018 (exhibited at page 16 of Part B of the CBD) (“the Second Agreement”), which was for legal fees which the Plaintiff was to charge by way of deducting 6% from the monthly installments of MYR15,000, which was payable by the Defendant’s former husband, for a period of 60 months commencing May 2018. In return, the Plaintiff agreed to ensure that the former husband adheres to the terms of the Decree Nisi Order, and to act for the Defendant in case of any default or refusal by her former husband to make the necessary payments.
[8]On 8 May 2018, the Defendant paid an amount of MYR15,000 to the Plaintiff as part of the legal fees and disbursements in respect of the First Agreement. Receipt of this payment was duly acknowledged by the Plaintiff.
[9]In both May and June 2018, the Defendant had made payments of MYR1,800 (MYR900 per month) pursuant to monthly fees in respect of the Second Agreement. However, subsequently upon the instructions of the Defendant, a letter dated 25 June 2018 was issued by Messrs Vooi & Yee informing the Plaintiff that they would take over the matter from the Plaintiff, and requested for final tax invoice for the legal services provided by the Plaintiff in respect of her divorce matter.
[10]The Defendant had also informed the Plaintiff of her intention to terminate the Second Agreement. This she had done via letter by Messrs Vooi & Yee to the Plaintiff, dated 19 July 2018 (exhibited at pages 27-28 of Part B of the CBD), in which she had enclosed a cheque (exhibited at page 29 of Part B of the CBD) to the Plaintiff in the amount of MYR10,000 as full and final settlement
