The Singapore Law Gazette

Disciplinary Tribunal Reports

Pursuant to section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.

This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.

---

In the Matters of Chen Kok Siang Joseph (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

DT 8 of 2022; C3J/OA 2/2024

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint by the Respondent’s former client (the Complainant).
2. The Complainant had suffered personal injuries in an industrial accident on 6 April 2016, and engaged the Respondent to act for him in his work injury compensation claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019 (the WICA Claim).
3. Amongst the employees of the Respondent’s firm were one Saha Ranjit Chandra (Mr Ranjit), the “Client Executive Officer”, and one Mr Dulal Chandra Baroi (Mr Dulal) “Client’s Relationship Manager”.
4. On or about 11 August 2017, the Complainant signed a Warrant to Act (WTA) appointing the Respondent’s firm to act for him. On or about 21 August 2017, the Complainant signed a Power of Attorney (PO) which provided for the Respondent to be appointed the Complainant’s donee/attorney and to perform the acts mentioned therein in his name. Both the WTA and POA were interpreted to the Complainant by Mr Ranjit.
5. The Respondent commenced District Court Suit No. DC/DC 3323/2017 (DC 3323) on the Complainant’s behalf against two Defendants. DC 3323 was settled in or around November to December 2018.
6. The terms of the settlement of DC 3323 (the Settlement) stated that the Complainant was to receive the total sum of $11,000 (the Settlement Sum).
7. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for grossly improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

For representing to the Complainant, whether by himself or through the interpretation of Mr Ranjit, that he would receive a compensation sum of at least $50,000 when the Respondent knew or ought to have known that there was no basis for such advice, thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).

Second Charge

For entering into and receiving payment in respect of DC 3323 on behalf of the Complainant, without advising and/or informing the Complainant of the terms and circumstances of the settlement, as well as his consent in relation to the Settlement, and for using the sum of $6,000 from the Settlement Sum he had received, towards the payment of his legal fees and disbursements without informing the Complainant and obtaining his consent, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(a), 16(3)(a) and 17(3) of the PCR.

Third Charge

For entering into a settlement agreement in respect of DC 3323 on behalf of the Complainant without advising or informing the Complainant of the settlement and/or its circumstances, and without obtaining the Complainant’s consent in this regard, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(b), 5(2)(e), 5(2)(h) and 5(2)(j) of the PCR.

Fourth Charge

For failing to inform the Complainant of the discontinuance of DC 3323, that being information that would reasonably affect the Complainant’s interests in DC 3323, thus amounting to a breach of Rules 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(e) of the PCR.

Fifth Charge

For failing to keep proper contemporaneous records of all advice rendered to and all instructions received from the Complainant in relation to DC 3323, thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(k) of the PCR.

Sixth Charge

For failing to keep proper contemporaneous records of all advice rendered to and all instructions received from the Complainant in relation to the entering into of the WTA and POA, thereby amounting to a breach of Rule 5(2)(k) of the PCR.

Seventh Charge

For failing to exercise proper supervision over his staff, namely Mr Ranjit and/or Mr Dulal, between late 2016 and 2019 and failing to take adequate steps to supervise their oral communication with the Complainant in respect of matters relating to DC 3323, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR.

Eighth Charge

For failing to advise the Complainant on the terms of the WTA and the POA, that being information that would reasonably affect the Complainant’s interest in DC 3323, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(h) of the PCR.

Ninth Charge

For appearing before the Court in DC 3323 despite his failure to maintain professional independence by reason of the terms of the WTA and the POA, by which he had acquired a financial interest in the subject matter of DC 3323, thereby amounting to a breach of Rule 11(2)(a) of the PCR.

Tenth Charge

For entering into negotiations with the Complainant for an interest in DC 3323, and subsequently acquiring such interest by virtue of his unfettered power through the WTA and POA to recover his unquantified professional fees from any proceeds and/or settlement sums in DC 3323, therefore amounting to a breach of Rule 18(a) of the PCR.

Eleventh Charge

For acting for the Complainant despite the existence, or reasonable expectation of the existence, of a conflict between the Respondent’s interests and his duty to serve the best interest of the Complainant in respect of the WTA and the POA, thus breaching Rule 22(2) of the PCR.

8. Additionally, alternative charges under section 83(2)(h) of the Act (Alternative Charges) were preferred against the Respondent in respect of the First, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Charges.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

9. The DT noted the Respondent’s unsatisfactory and unacceptable conduct throughout the DT proceedings, and expressed their dissatisfaction with regards to the Complainant’s disrespect towards the disciplinary proceedings.
10. The DT found that the First Charge and its alternative had not been made out beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the same.
11. In respect of the Second to the Eleventh Charges, the DT found that they were made out beyond a reasonable doubt, and determined pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act.
12. The DT awarded costs of $26,000 as well as the sum of $9,789.38 for disbursements in favour of the Law Society.

Council’s Decision

13. The Council had accepted and agreed with the DT’s findings, and referred the 2^nd to 11^th Charges to the Court of Three Judges vide C3J/OA 2/2024 (OA 2).

To access the full report, click here.

DT 24 of 2022; C3J/OA 5/2024

14. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a complaint made by the Respondent’s former client (the Complainant).
15. On or about 2015, the Complainant authorised his relative to appoint Joseph Chen & Co (JCC) to take over conduct of District Court Suit No. 2553 of 2014 (DC 2553) for him, which had been commenced by the Complainant for damages arising from personal injuries he had suffered.
16. The following charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

That you, Chen Kok Siang, Joseph, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, whilst practicing at Joseph Chen & Co, are charged that you had, between 2 December 2015 and 31 August 2018, breached Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional) Conduct) Rules, in failing to exercise proper supervision over the staff working in your law practice by failing to be present with the staff and the Complainant when the staff translated your legal advice and the alleged notice of termination of the retainer to the Complainant, and/or by failing to instruct your staff to specify and translate to the Complainant the precise date on which the Suit would be deemed automatically discontinued.

Second Charge

That you, Chen Kok Siang, Joseph, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, whilst practising at Joseph Chen & Co, are charged that you had, between February 2016 and October 2016, breached Rule 5(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, in failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to the Complainant by failing to take any steps to contact the Complainant between February 2016 and October 2016, and allowing the Complainant’s Suit to be automatically discontinued.

Third Charge

That you, Chen Kok Siang, Joseph, an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, whilst practising at Joseph Chen & Co, are charged that you had, between February 2016 and October 2016, breached Rule 5(2)(h) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, in failing to provide timely advice to the Complainant by failing to take any steps to contact the Complainant between February 2016 and October 2016 and not advising the Complainant that his suit would be automatically discontinued if no further steps were taken by October 2016.

17. Three alternative charges citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act were tendered against the Respondent.

Findings by the DT

18. The DT found that the First Charge (under section 83(2)(b) of the Act) was not made out beyond a reasonable doubt, and dismissed it, but found that the Alternative First Charge (under section 83(2)(h) of the Act) had been made out.
19. The DT found that the Second and Third Charges were made out.
20. The DT determined, pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act, that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act in relation to the Alternative First Charge, Second Charge and Third Charge. Pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, the DT ordered the Respondent to pay costs of S$18,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to the Law Society.

Council’s Decision

21. The Council accepted and agreed with the DT’s findings, and referred the Alternative First Charge, Second Charge and Third Charge to the Court of Three Judges, vide C3J/OA 5/2024 (OA 5).

To access the full report, click here.

Findings of the Court of Three Judges

22. The Court of Three Judges (the Court) heard OA 2 and OA 5 together on 25 November 2024.
23. The Court ordered in OA 2 that the Respondent be struck off the rolls, and that the Respondent to pay costs of $40,000.00 to the Law Society.
24. The Court noted in OA 5 that in the circumstances, it could not strike the Respondent off again, but observed that, had OA 5 been heard by the Court on its own, prior to the hearing of OA 2, the Court would have issued an order of striking off in OA 5. The Court ordered the Respondent to pay costs of $23,000.00 to the Law Society.

The Court’s grounds of decision in OA 2 and 5 may be viewed here.

---

In the Matter of Yeo Poh Tiang (Yang Baozhen) (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) against the Respondent.
2. The following main charge and alternative charge were preferred against the Respondent:

Charge

“That you, Ms Yeo Poh Tiang (Yang Baozhen), an advocate & solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties as a solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act, in that, by appending your signature to the “Signature of certificate issuer as witness” portion at page 2, Lasting Power of Attorney Form 1 of the instrument dated 5 February 2018 which was intended to create a lasting power of attorney under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 for the Donor, you had falsely attested or certified that you personally witnessed the Donor appending her signature to the “Signature of the donor” portion on page 2, Lasting Power of Attorney Form 1 of the said instrument in your presence when you were not so present and/or had not so personally witnessed.”

Alternative Charge

“That you, Ms Yeo Poh Tiang (Yang Baozhen), an advocate & solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act, in that, by appending your signature to the “Signature of certificate issuer as witness” portion at page 2, Lasting Power of Attorney Form 1 of the instrument dated 5 February 2018 which was intended to create a lasting power of attorney under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 for the Donor, you had falsely attested or certified that you personally witnessed the Donor appending her signature to the “Signature of the donor” portion on page 2, Lasting Power of Attorney Form 1 of the said instrument in your presence when you were not so present and/or had not so personally witnessed.”

Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

3. The DT found that the Charge and Alternative Charge were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act for the referral to the Court of Three Judges.
4. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that the Respondent pay costs to the Law Society, which was to be reduced by half.

Findings and Determination of the Court of Three Judges

5. The matter was heard by the Court of Three Judges (the Court) on 7 April 2025.
6. The Court found that due cause was made out on the Charge.
7. The Court ordered that the Respondent be suspended for a period of four months commencing from 7 May 2025, and that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs of $5,000 and reasonable disbursements.

The Court’s grounds of decision may be viewed here. 

To access the full report, click here.