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 matter of Tan Jeh Yaw (“Respondent”), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a referral of information made against the Respondent under section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “LPA”).
2. The Respondent offered training contracts to two individuals, one Mr K and one Mr L. The Respondent was not, at any material time, qualified to act as a supervising solicitor pursuant to Rule 18 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 (the “Admission Rules”).
3. The following main charges, for contravening the Admission Rules which warrants disciplinary action within the meaning of section 83(2)(j) of the LPA, were preferred against the Respondent, with alternatives referencing section 83(2)(h) of the LPA:

1^st Charge

The Respondent by being the supervising solicitor during the practice training period of [Mr K], who was a practice trainee serving his practice training period under a practice training contract with Tan Jeh Yaw Law Chambers from 3 January 2019 to 11 July 2019, while having in force a practicing certificate of a period of less than 5 out of the 7 years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of his supervision of [Mr K], had contravened Rule 18(1)(b) of the Admission Rules.

2^nd Charge

The Respondent by being the supervising solicitor during the practice training period of [Mr L], who was a practice trainee serving his practice training period under a practice training contract with Tan Jeh Yaw Law Chambers from 4 January 2019 to 12 July 2019, while having in force a practicing certificate of a period of less than 5 out of the 7 years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of his supervision of [Mr L], had contravened Rule 18(1)(b) of the Admission Rules.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

4. The DT found that the main charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under Section 83 of the LPA for the referral to the Court of Three Judges (“C3J”).
5. The DT ordered, pursuant to Section 93(2) of the LPA, that the Respondent pay costs of $6,000 (all-in) to the Law Society.

Findings and Determination of the C3J

6. The matter was heard by the C3J on 8 December 2025.
7. The C3J found that due cause was proved under section 83(2)(j) of the LPA on the main charges. Drawing comparisons with Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence [2023] 4 SLR 638, the C3J stated that genuine remorse, as demonstrated by the Respondent’s lengthy voluntary or self-imposed suspension, and his intention to plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, was “the most significant factor” in its determination of the appropriate sanction.
8. The C3J ordered that the Respondent be suspended for a period of 12 months, and that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs and disbursements of $5,000.

The C3J’s grounds of decision may be viewed here.

To access the full report, click here.