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

Findings of the Court of Three Judges

1. These Court of Three Judges (“C3J“) proceedings against the Respondent arose out of five references (namely, OA 16, OA 6, OA 7, OA 12, and OA 14) which the C3J heard together on 28 November 2025. In considering the matters collectively, the C3J noted that the Respondent’s conduct across the various proceedings revealed serious defects of character incompatible with the core duties of an advocate and solicitor, and upheld all findings of the five Disciplinary Tribunals (“DTs”) that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (“LPA“).

2. As a preliminary issue, the C3J granted the Law Society leave to withdraw certain statements forming part of the eighth charge in OA 12, on the basis that the Respondent was, at the relevant time, a non‑practising solicitor who did not hold a practising certificate. The C3J held that he should therefore have been subject to disciplinary proceedings under section 82A LPA, rather than section 85(1).

3. In light of its findings, the C3J ordered that the Respondent be struck off the rolls and granted the Law Society liberty to apply on any consequential matters, including costs.

4. The Court’s full grounds of decision for OA 16, OA 6, OA 7, OA 12, and OA 14 may be accessed at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGHC_234

5. The following DT Notices are in relation to each of the DT proceedings:

A. DT 17 of 2022, C3J/OA 16/2023

B. DT 2 of 2023, C3J/OA 6/2024

C. DT 12 of 2023, C3J/OA 7/2024

D. DT 15 of 2023, C3J/OA 12/2024

E. DT 18 of 2023, C3J/OA 14/2024

1. DT 17 of 2022, C3J/OA 16/2023

6. The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”).

7. At the material time, the Respondent had been practising at Whitefield Law Corporation (“WLC”).

8. On 30 December 2017, the Complainant sustained an injury in the course of his employment. The Complainant had engaged Joseph Chen & Co. (“JCC”) to commence DC/DC 2831/2018 (“DC 2831”) to claim damages arising from his injury. The Complainant had communicated with JCC solely through one Saha Ranjit Chandra (“SRC”) who had allegedly introduced himself as “the second lawyer” after the Respondent.

9. On 5 January 2021, the Respondent filed a Notice of Change of Solicitor, taking over conduct of the Complainant’s matter.

10. Thereafter, the following steps were taken:

    1. On 9 February 2021, $32,584 was paid by China Taiping to WLC;

    2. On 4 March 2021, the Respondent filed a Notice of Discontinuance in DC 2831; and

    3. WLC paid out $32,584 from its client account to SRC.

11. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:-

1^st Charge

The Respondent had purported to act for the Complainant without obtaining any Warrant to Act from him.

2^nd Charge

The Respondent had failed to (i) communicate directly with the Complainant, and (ii) confirm instructions with him directly, whilst purporting to have conduct of DC 2831.

3^rd Charge

The Respondent had failed to directly notify the Complainant and/or to communicate with him directly on the receipt of the sum of $32,584 under settlement of DC 2831 into the client account.

4^th Charge

The Respondent had failed to obtain the authorisation from the Complainant for the sum of $32,584 to be drawn from the client account in favour of SRC.

12. In addition, alternative charges under section 83(2)(h) of the Act were made against the Respondent for each of the 4 Charges (“Alternative Charges”).

Findings of the DT

13. The DT found that the Respondent was guilty of all four Charges and all the Alternative Charges, and that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The DT further ordered pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs in the sum of $3,000 plus reasonable disbursements.

14. The Council duly referred the matter to the Court of Three Judges vide C3J/OA 16/2023 (OA 16).

To access the full report, click here.

2. DT 2 of 2023, C3J/OA 6/2024

15. The present proceedings arose from a complaint made against the Respondent under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”). The Respondent was at all material times a partner at Whitefield Law Corporation (“WLC”).

16. The Complainant had suffered injuries from an accident in the course of employment and filed a claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act (“WICA”) with the assistance of solicitors.

17. In August 2018, the Complainant was allegedly persuaded by one Mr Saha Ranjit Chandra (“SRC”) to transfer his matter to Joseph Chen & Co (“JCC”), discontinue his WICA claim, and instead pursue a civil claim.

18. After JCC took over conduct for the Complainant, JCC commenced DC/DC 2172/2019 (“DC 2172”).

19. On 12 November 2020, parties to DC 2172 reached a settlement, with JCC accepting the sum of $37,465.40

20. Sometime prior to 29 November 2020, the Respondent was presented with: (a) a Warrant to Act dated 25 November 2020 purportedly signed by the Complainant (“WTA”); and (b) the letter of discharge addressed to JCC dated 23 November 2020, also purportedly signed by the Complainant.

21. Subsequently, the Respondent also received a Power of Attorney dated 24 November 2020 (“POA”) signed by the Complainant and notarised by a Bangladeshi notary public. The POA empowered the Respondent to take charge, manage and represent the Complainant in all matters connected to DC 2172. All documents were presented by SRC.

22. A series of Notices of Change of Solicitor (“NOCs”) were then filed by the Respondent and JCC in DC 2172.

23. The following amended charges were preferred against the Respondent:-

1^st Charge

The Respondent had failed to ascertain and verify that his client was the Complainant before the start, or during the course, of establishing a business relationship with the client for the purposes of representing the client in DC 2172, thereby breaching rule 6(1) read with rule 11(1) of the Legal Profession (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Rules 2015 (“PML/FT Rules”), contravening section 70C read with section 70G of the Act, and was thus guilty within the meaning of section 83(2)(j) of the Act.

2^nd Amended Charge

The Respondent had failed to ensure that SRC, who gave the Respondent the WTA which was purportedly signed by the Complainant, was authorised to convey the instruction on the Complainant’s behalf. The Respondent had also failed to obtain the Complainant’s confirmation of his purported instruction for the Respondent to act on his behalf, thereby amounting to a breach of rule 5(5) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”) which amounts to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

3^rd Amended Charge

The Respondent had failed to ensure that SRC, who gave the Respondent the POA which was purportedly signed by the Complainant, was authorised to convey the instruction on the Complainant’s behalf. The Respondent also did not obtain the Complainant’s confirmation of his purported instructions to the Respondent as set out in the POA, thereby breaching rule 5(5) of the PCR which amounts to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

8^th Amended Charge

The Respondent had relied on the WTA and the POA to file NOCs stating that WLC had been appointed to act on behalf of the Complainant in DC 2172 without ensuring that SRC was authorised to convey the instructions in the WTA and/or POA to the Respondent on the Complainant’s behalf. The Respondent had also failed to obtain the Complainant’s confirmation that he was authorised to act on the Complainant’s behalf in DC 2172, thereby breaching rule 5(5) of the PCR which amounts to improper conduct under section 83(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

24. Alternative charges to each of the above referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act were also preferred against the Respondent.

Findings of the DT

25. The DT determined that the 1^st, 2^nd Amended, 3^rd Amended and 8^th Amended Charges, and their alternatives, were made out beyond a reasonable doubt, and pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act, cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act.

26. The Council duly referred the matter to the Court of Three Judges vide C3J/OA 6/2024 (OA 6).

To access the full report, click here.

3. DT 12 of 2023, C3J/OA 7/2024

27. The present proceedings arose from a complaint made against the Respondent under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”). The Respondent was a director at Whitefield Law Corporation (“Whitefield Law”) at all material times.

28. The Complainant suffered injuries in an accident in the course of his employment and made a claim for compensation. In December 2018, one Saha Ranjit Chandra (“SRC”) approached the Complainant and suggested that he transfer conduct of his claim to Joseph Chen & Co (“JCC”). On 18 December 2019, JCC filed DC Suit 3736 of 2019 (the “Suit”) on the Complainant’s behalf.

29. On 7 August 2020, Whitefield Law filed a Notice of Change of Solicitors (“NOC”) in the Suit, naming the Respondent as the solicitor-in-charge.

30. As at 14 August 2020, SRC was employed at Whitefield Law.

31. The Respondent, purportedly acting on behalf of the Complainant, then entered into a settlement in the Suit. He had signed, purportedly on behalf of the Complainant, a “Discharge Voucher” in which the Complainant was stated to have acknowledged receipt of the sum of $30,000 (the “Settlement Sum”) in settlement of his claims (the “Settlement”).

32. After the Settlement Sum was paid to Whitefield Law on 4 September 2020, the Respondent arranged for $23,000 of the sum to be paid to SRC in accordance with SRC’s instructions.

33. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act, were preferred against the Respondent:-

1^st Charge

The Respondent received instructions from SRC to act for the Complainant in relation to the Complainant’s claims to:

1. Negotiate and enter into a settlement in the Suit

2. Receive the Settlement Sum into the account of Whitefield Law and arrange for $23,000 of the Settlement Sum to be transferred to SRC

without ensuring that SRC had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the Complainant and did not obtain the Complainant’s confirmation of the instructions given by SRC, thereby breaching Rule 5(5) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”).

2^nd Charge

The Respondent had failed to communicate directly with the Complainant to obtain or confirm his instructions in the course of providing advice in relation to the Complainant’s claims in the Suit, thereby amounting to a breach of Rule 39(2)(g) of the PCR.

3^rd Charge

The Respondent did not carry out required customer due diligence measures by failing to verify whether SRC was authorised to act on behalf of the Complainant before the start, or during the course, of acting for the Complainant in respect of the Suit, thereby acting in breach of section 70 of the Act read with Rules 4, 7(a) and 11 of the Legal Profession (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Rules 2015.

4^th Charge

The Respondent had (1) received into the client account of Whitefield Law the Settlement Sum as client’s monies on account of the Complainant in connection with the Settlement, and (2) caused the sum of $23,000 of the said client’s monies to be drawn from the client account and paid out to SRC, without the Complainant’s authorisation and otherwise than as provided under Rule 7 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (“SAR”), thereby breaching Rule 8 of the SAR.

5^th Charge

The Respondent had failed to exercise proper supervision over SRC, in that:

1. he had failed to ensure that SRC obtained from the Complainant the necessary authorisation for Whitefield Law to act on the latter’s behalf in the Suit, and yet proceeded to take over conduct of the Complainant’s claim by filing the NOC;

2. he had failed to ensure that SRC obtained the necessary authorisation and instructions from the Complainant to enter into the Settlement; and

3. he had failed to ensure that SRC obtained the necessary authorisation and instructions from the Complainant in relation to the Settlement Sum received by Whitefield Law and yet he caused $23,000 to be paid to SRC from the Settlement Sum without authorisation from the Complainant,

thereby amounting to a breach of Rule 32 of the PCR.

34. Alternative charges to each of the above referencing section 83(2)(h) of the Act were also preferred against the Respondent.

Findings of the DT

35. The DT determined that the 5 charges and their alternatives were made out beyond a reasonable doubt, and pursuant to Section 93(1)(c) of the Act, there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under Section 83 of the Act. Pursuant to Section 93(2) of the Act, the DT ordered the Respondent to pay costs of $8,000 plus disbursements of $10,043.37 to the Society.

36. The Council duly referred the matter to the Court of Three Judges vide C3J/OA 7/2024 (OA 7).

To access the full report, click here.

4. DT 15 of 2023, C3J/OA 12/2024

37. These proceedings arose from a reference made by the Attorney-General (“AG”) pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”) touching upon the conduct of the Respondent: (i) in three sets of proceedings brought on behalf of his clients, (ii) during the period from 28 January 2022 to 25 April 2022, during which he made statements on his Instagram account regarding the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and other legal practitioners.

38. By way of background, the Respondent acted for two inmates (the “Clients”) who were convicted of drug trafficking in the High Court and sentenced to death, and had exhausted all avenues of appeal against their sentence. The Respondent brought a criminal review application under Section 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to set aside the capital sentences, on behalf of the Clients vide CA/CM 6/2022 (“CM 6”). The Court in CM 6 considered and dismissed the arguments made by the Respondent, viz., it would be unlawful or unconstitutional to execute offenders who suffered from some mental disorder or substantial mental impairment.

39. Notwithstanding this, on the same date, the Respondent invoked the civil jurisdiction of the Court vide HC/OS 139/2022 (“OS 139”) and CA/CA 6/2022 (“CA 6”), which was an appeal against the dismissal of OS 139. In both proceedings, the Respondent made similar or substantially similar arguments previously made in CM 6. The AG was the defendant in OS 139 and the respondent in CA 6.

40. The following charges were preferred against the Respondent:- 

1^st Charge

For misconduct unbefitting of 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 LPA, by commencing civil proceedings vide OS 139 and subsequently bringing an appeal vide CA 6 in respect of similar or substantially similar issues and/or grounds which have previously been heard and dismissed by the Court in criminal proceedings vide CA 6.

2^nd Charge and Alternative 2^nd Charge

For breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (“PCR”) in that he knowingly misled and/or attempted to mislead the Court during the hearing of OS 139 through the making of certain statements in his attempt to deny that he was bound by the earlier conclusions of the Court in CM 6, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of LPA, or

2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. 

Amended 3^rd Charge and Amended Alternative 3^rd Charge

For breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) of the PCR in that he knowingly misled and/or attempted to mislead the Court during the hearing of OS 139 through the making of certain statements that there was no dispute as to the IQ of one of his clients, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of LPA, or

2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. 

Amended 4^th Charge and Amended Alternative 4^th Charge

For breaching Rule 9(2)(g) and/or 9(2)(h)(ii) of the PCR in that he knowingly misled and/or attempted to mislead the Court in OS 139 which were false and baseless, amounting to:

 

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of LPA, or

2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. 

5^th Charge and Alternative 5^th Charge

For breaching Rule 13(2) and/or 13(6)(a) of the PCR in that he published various Instagram posts and Instagram stories containing certain statements which allege that the Courts lack integrity and do not act properly or impartially in the discharge of their duties and functions, and are contemptuous, false and/or misleading, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of LPA, or

2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. 

6^th Charge

For publishing various Instagram posts and Instagram stories containing certain statements which allege that those who act on behalf of the AG (as members of the Attorney-General’s Chambers) have acted improperly in the discharge of their duties and functions in the administration of justice, and/or that they lack integrity, amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA read with rules 7(2) and/or 8(3)(b) of the PCR.

Alternative 6^th Charge

For publishing various Instagram posts and Instagram stories containing certain statements which are disrespectful, discourteous, rude, baseless and/or unbecoming, amounting to 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 LPA read with rules 7(2) and/or 8(3)(b) of the PCR.

7^th Charge and Alternative 7^th Charge

For breaching Rule 13(6)(a) and/or 13(6)(b) of the PCR in that he published various Instagram posts and Instagram stories containing certain statements which poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with the course of pending proceedings in respect of costs of the proceedings in CM 6, OS 139 and CA 6, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of LPA, or

2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. 

Amended 8^th Charge and Amended Alternative 8^th Charge

For breaching Rule 7(2) and/or 8(3)(b) of the PCR in that he published various Instagram posts and Instagram stories containing statements in respect of other legal practitioners which were disrespectful, discourteous, rude, baseless and unbecoming, amounting to:

1. grossly improper conduct and practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of LPA, or

2. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. 

Findings of the DT

41. The DT was of the view that the Charges (save for qualifications to the Amended Fourth and Amended Alternative Fourth Charges) were made out and that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83(1) of the Act. The DT also ordered costs of $8,000.

42. The Council duly referred the matter to the Court of Three Judges vide C3J/OA 12/2024 (OA 12).

To access the full report, click here.

5. DT 18 of 2023, C3J/OA 14/2024

43. The present proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the “Act”).

44. At the material time, the Respondent had been practising at Whitefield Law Corporation (“WLC”).

45. On 30 December 2017, the Complainant sustained an injury in the course of his employment. The Complainant had engaged Joseph Chen & Co. (“JCC”) to commence DC/DC 2831/2018 (“DC 2831”) to claim damages arising from his injury. The Complainant had communicated with JCC solely through one Saha Ranjit Chandra (“SRC”) who had allegedly introduced himself as “the second lawyer” after the Respondent.

46. On 5 January 2021, the Respondent filed a Notice of Change of Solicitor, taking over conduct of the Complainant’s matter.

47. Thereafter, the following steps were taken:

    1. On 9 February 2021, $32,584 was paid by China Taiping to WLC;

    2. On 4 March 2021, the Respondent filed a Notice of Discontinuance in DC 2831; and

    3. WLC paid out $32,584 from its client account to SRC.

48. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Act amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:-

1^st Charge

The Respondent had purported to act for the Complainant without obtaining any Warrant to Act from him.

2^nd Charge

The Respondent had failed to (i) communicate directly with the Complainant, and (ii) confirm instructions with him directly, whilst purporting to have conduct of DC 2831.

3^rd Charge

The Respondent had failed to directly notify the Complainant and/or to communicate with him directly on the receipt of the sum of $32,584 under settlement of DC 2831 into the client account.

4^th Charge

The Respondent had failed to obtain the authorisation from the Complainant for the sum of $32,584 to be drawn from the client account in favour of SRC.

49. In addition, alternative charges under section 83(2)(h) of the Act were made against the Respondent for each of the 4 Charges (“Alternative Charges”).

Findings of the DT

50. The DT found that the Respondent was guilty of all four Charges and all the Alternative Charges, and that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The DT further ordered pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs in the sum of $3,000 plus reasonable disbursements.

51. The Council duly referred the matter to the Court of Three Judges vide C3J/OA 14/2024 (“OA 14”).

To access the full report, click here.