The Standard 2009-06-26
By Diana Lee
No win, no fee' pair convicted
A solicitor and the woman who helped her strike a "no win, no fee" deal are facing jail after
being convicted in a legal first for the city yesterday.
Solicitor Winnie Lo Wai-yan, 40, and claim agent Cheung Oi-ping, 39, were both found guilty at
the District Court of one count of conspiracy to commit maintenance after a mother was
manipulated into making a compensation claim for her injured son.
Cheung, who is now unemployed, was also convicted of one count of champerty - striking a
bargain to receive part of the settlement of a lawsuit.
This the first time in Hong Kong's legal history that anyone has been convicted of either
charge.
Both defendants were remanded in custody pending sentence.
Deputy Judge Albert Wong Sung- hau deferred sentencing to July 9 pending background
reports and a Community Service Order Report for Lo.
Both defendants were acquitted of four other charges, including one count of perjury.
Delivering his verdict, Judge Wong said the only prosecution witness, the 51-year-old mother
Wong Siu-ying, was credible.
The judge was convinced that Wong trusted Cheung and was manipulated into making a
compensation claim for her son Yeung Chun-kit, who was declared mentally incapacitated
after being hit by a drunk driver in March 2001.
Wong, a cleaner with a Form Five education, agreed to Cheung's deal to have Lo represent
her in court in exchange for 25 percent of the compensation as "service charge" if she won the
case.
After a September 2003 settlement in which Yeung received HK$3.5 million, Wong was
instructed by Cheung to withdraw HK$861,652 to pay her "as required by the deal."
Lacking local case law in this area, Judge Wong said according to a Court of Final Appeal
judgment in a 2007 civil action, he had to evaluate whether the acts of the defendants may
have encouraged the perversion of justice and endangered the integrity of judicial processes,
and whether they posed a genuine risk to the integrity of the court.
In her defense, Lo claimed she had no knowledge of Cheung's deal with Wong.
Though there was no evidence to suggest Lo had told Wong about the "no win, no fee" deal or
had received any proceeds, evidence suggested she had acted jointly with Cheung to expose
Wong to risk.
The judge also found Lo's defense incredible and far-fetched.