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 Pillai Subbiah (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) against the Respondent.
2. The Complainant had suffered injuries in a worksite accident sometime in or around February 2016. The Complainant engaged the Respondent to seek compensation for his injuries.
3. The Respondent filed HC/S 408/2017, which was transferred down to the State Courts as DC/S 408/2017 (the Suit). Upon settlement of the Suit, the Respondent received a total sum of S$ 251,538.70 (the Judgment Sum).
4. Subsequently, the Respondent rendered an invoice to the Complainant dated 4 June 2018 (the 2018 Invoice).
5. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the LPA for improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, with alternatives referencing section 83(2)(h) were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to be honest in his dealings with the Complainant, by dishonestly backdating the 2018 Invoice and dishonestly informing the Complainant when he had posted the 2018 Invoice to the Complainant, thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (the PCR).

Second Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to the Complainant, in that the Respondent failed to transfer the entire Judgment Sum to the Complainant promptly after receipt, thereby breaching Rules 17(2)(b) and/or 5(2)(c) of the PCR.

Third Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to keep the Complainant reasonably informed on the progress of the matter, provide timely advice and/or follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions that the Complainant gave, thereby breaching Rules 5(2)(e), 5(2)(h), and 5(2)(i) of the PCR.

Fourth Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to keep contemporaneous records of all instructions received from, and all advice rendered to the Complainant, thereby breaching Rule 5(2)(k) of the PCR.

Fifth Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to inform the Complainant of the basis on which the fees for professional service will be charged or for any other reasonable foreseeable payments that the Complainant may have to make, inform the Complainant of the manner in which those fees and disbursements are to be paid, provide estimates of fees and other payments and ensure that the actual amounts of fees and other payments do not vary substantially from the estimate, thereby breaching Rules 17(3)(a), 17(3)(b), 17(3)(c), and/or 17(3)(d) of the PCR.

Sixth Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, failing to inform the Complainant in writing of his right to apply to court to have the 2018 Invoice assessed, thereby breaching Rule 17(5) of the PCR.

Seventh Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record for the Complainant in the Suit, having rendered the 2018 Invoice for the sum of S$100,000 which amounts to grossly overcharging the Complainant, thereby breaching Rule 17(7), read with Rule 17(8) of the PCR.

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

6. The DT found that the First, Second and Seventh 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 LPA for the referral to the Court of Three Judges.
7. The DT found that the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth 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 LPA.
8. The DT recommended that the Respondent should be reprimanded in respect of the Third Charge, and be ordered to pay a penalty of S$5,000.00 for each of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Charges.
9. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the LPA, that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs in the sum of S$10,000 and reasonable disbursements fixed at S$17,698.02.
10. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the LPA, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the following sanctions on the Respondent:

1. In respect of the Third Charge – reprimand;
2. In respect of the Fourth Charge – penalty of $5,000;
3. In respect of the Fifth Charge – penalty of $5,000; and
4. In respect of the Sixth Charge – penalty of $5,000.

Findings and Determination of the Court of Three Judges

11. The matter was heard by the Court of Three Judges (the Court) on 9 April 2025.
12. The Court found that due cause was made out for the First, Second, and Seventh Charges, and ordered that the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors, and that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs of $41,275.00.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the Matter of Lim Tianjun (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent.
2. The Respondent was acting for the claimant in DC/DC 1784/2019 (the Suit), which was a defamation action against the Complainant.
3. On 22 September 2021, the Suit was determined in favour of the claimant. The Complainant appealed against the decision in the Suit, in HC/DCA 44/2021 (DCA 44).
4. The complaint arose in relation to the filing of the Affidavit (the Affidavit) for one Mr Tan in HC/SUM 20001/2022 (SUM 20001) for DCA 44.
5. The following main charges, referencing section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the LPA) for improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, were preferred against the Respondent:

First Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record in the Suit, knowingly misleading or attempting to mislead the Court by approving inaccurate statements to be included in the Affidavit in SUM 20001 for DCA 44, thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) and/or 9(2)(c) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR).

Second Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record in the Suit, knowingly misleading or attempting to mislead the Court by approving without reading inaccurate statements to be included in the submissions for SUM 20001, thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) and/or 9(2)(c) of the PCR.

Third Charge

Whilst acting as solicitor on record in the Suit, knowingly misleading or attempting to mislead the Court by failing to properly disclose his medical certificate so that the period he was unfit for was left ambiguous in order to induce the Court to allow the two week extension of time to file his client’s response to the Appellant’s case, thereby breaching Rule 9(2)(a)(i) and/or 9(2)(c) of the PCR.

6. Alternative charges under section 83(2)(h) of the LPA to the three charges above were also preferred against the Respondent.

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

7. The DT found that all three Charges and their Alternatives were not made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. The Council accepted the DT’s findings.

To access the full report, click here.