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 Yeo Yao Hui, Charles (Yang Yaohui) (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent.
2. The Complainant suffered injuries in a worksite accident on 23 April 2018. He was connected by Ranjit Chandra Saha (Ranjit), an employee of Joseph Chen & Co (JCC), to JCC. The Complainant engaged JCC as his solicitors to claim compensation. DC/DC 2171/2019 (the Suit) was commenced on the Complainant’s behalf.
3. Sometime in November 2020, Ranjit switched employment to the Respondent’s then-law practice Whitefield Law Corporation (WLC). Ranjit was the client liaison executive at WLC. Following this, the Complainant’s file was transferred to WLC.
4. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) for improper conduct or practice as an advocate & solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to keep the Complainant reasonably informed on a timely basis as to the progress of the Suit, whether by himself or in ensuring that any person you instructed to do so on your behalf did properly carry out his instructions to inform the Complainant, thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(e) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).

Second Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to explain clearly and properly to the Complainant the quantum of the settlement agreed in the Suit, to wit, misrepresenting the quantum of the settlement to the Complainant, thereby breaching Rules 17(2)(c) and/or 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(e) of the PCR.

Third Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to properly supervise the person(s) he instructed to properly carry out his instructions to inform the Complainant of the quantum of the settlement agreed in the Suit, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR.

Fourth Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, attempting to improperly withhold and retain part of the compensation monies properly due to the Complainant arising out of the settlement in the Suit, such that the full amount of compensation monies was not paid to him in a timely manner, thereby breaching Rules 16(2) and 16(3)(a) and/or Rules 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(e) of the PCR.

Fifth Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to properly supervise the person(s) he instructed to pay over to the Complainant all the compensation monies arising out of the settlement in the Suit properly due to the Complainant, such that the full amount of compensation monies was not paid to the Complainant in a timely manner, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR.

Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), Council’s Sanctions

5. The DT found that the First, Third, and Fifth Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The DT found that the Second and Fourth Charges were not made out.
6. The DT recommended that the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$10,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that the Respondent pay the Law Society $6,000.00 in costs.
7. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the following sanctions on the Respondent:
   1. A reprimand for the First Charge;
   2. A penalty of $5,000.00 for the Third Charge; and
   3. A penalty of $5,000.00 for the Fifth Charge.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Regina D/O Vallabadoss (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint made against the Respondent by the Respondent’s former client.
2. The Law Society proceeded on the following charge (the Charge) against the Respondent:

Charge

Sending an email on or about 10 May 2021 to the Complainant’s employer and/or superiors and/or individuals in a position to affect the Complainant’s employment, in order to pressure and/or embarrass the Complainant into paying her legal bills when she knew or ought to have known that there was no legal basis for her to do so, and in the circumstances acting in a way which is contrary to her position as a member of an honourable profession towards the Complainant, thereby breaching Rule 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, amounting to improper conduct of practice as an advocate & solicitor under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act).

3. The Respondent pleaded guilty to the Charge.

Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT)

4. The DT found that the Charge was made out, but did not gave rise to cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act.
5. The DT noted that the email sent on 10 May 2021 by the Respondent was the only communication complained of, and the said email did not contain statements which were offensive, scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify or annoy the addressees. The DT also noted that the Respondent’s early admission of guilt had saved time and costs for all parties and was a mitigating factor.
6. The DT recommended that the Respondent be reprimanded. The DT also ordered costs and disbursements against the Respondent in the sum of $3,700.00.
7. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council adopted the DT report and reprimanded the Respondent.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from a referral by the Attorney-General under section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act) of information touching upon his conduct in the course of criminal proceedings against his then-client (the Proceedings).
2. Five charges were preferred against the Respondent, of which one was uncontested by the Respondent at the commencement of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) proceedings, as follows:

First and Uncontested Charge

Sometime in or around August 2021, acting in the course of criminal proceedings against his client (the Proceedings), contravened an order made by a State Court (under section 7(3) of the State Courts Act 1970 in the Proceedings on 7 February 2020), that no person shall publish, among other things, anything likely to lead to the identification of the complainant in the Proceedings (the Complainant), by publishing transcripts of the Proceedings, which contained unredacted information likely to lead to the identification of the Complainant, to wit, by instructing his Associate, Johannes Hadi, to distribute the said transcripts to the press, which he did so on 11 August 2021, and thereby committing an offence under section 7(4) of the State Courts Act 1970, such act amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Second Charge

For knowingly misleading or attempting to mislead the Court by giving the Court the impression that his pursuing the application to lift the gag order made on 7 February 2020 by a State Court under section 7(3) of the State Courts Act 1970 in the Proceedings, when his client had instructed him to withdraw the said application and he intended to withdraw the said application, thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR), amounting to improper conduct and practice as an advocate & solicitor under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

Third Charge

For acting in abuse of court process in making submissions in respect of the application to lift the gag order made on 7 February 2020 by a State Court under section 7(3) of the State Courts Act 1970 in the Proceedings, when he knew that there was no legal basis for the said application and that his Client had instructed him to withdraw the said application, such act amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Fourth Charge

For acting in abuse of court process in making submissions in respect of the application to lift the gag order made on 7 February 2020 by a State Court under section 7(3) of the State Courts Act 1970 in the Proceedings, in open court and in the presence of the members of the press, for the sole, dominant or additional purpose of influencing public opinion in favour of the Client and against the complainant in the Proceedings, such act amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate & solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Fifth Charge

For acting in abuse of court process in making submissions in respect of the application to lift the gag order made on 7 February 2020 by a State Court under section 7(3) of the State Courts Act 1970 in the Proceedings, by mischaracterising the conduct of the complainant in the Proceedings (the Complainant) during the trial as intending to mock the Client and his wife, in open court and in the presence of the members of the press, for the sole, dominant or additional purpose of influencing public opinion in favour of the Client and against the Complainant, when such allegation had not been put to the Complainant and was irrelevant to the said application, such act amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court of Singapore or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act.

Findings of the DT, Council’s Sanction

3. The DT found that the First and Uncontested Charge was made out, but there was no cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act, and recommended that the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of $1,000.00.
4. The DT found that the Second to Fifth Charges were not made out on the facts, and ordered that the Respondent pay to the Law Society costs at $1,500.00 and disbursements at $500.00.
5. Council accepted the findings of the DT and imposed a financial penalty of $1,000.00 on the Respondent.

To access the full report, click here.