Law Society v Choy Chee Yean: Misconduct of Advocate and Solicitor
In Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society concerning Choy Chee Yean, an advocate and solicitor, following his conviction for burglary in Hong Kong. The Law Society sought sanctions under the Legal Profession Act. Choy pleaded guilty to an amended charge of misconduct but contested the element of dishonesty. The court found Choy guilty of the amended charge and ordered that he be struck off the roll, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The Respondent was found guilty of the Amended charge and ordered to be struck off the roll.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment regarding the misconduct of advocate Choy Chee Yean, who was convicted of burglary in Hong Kong.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Allowed | Won | Michael Khoo, Josephine Low |
| Choy Chee Yean | Respondent | Individual | Struck off the roll | Lost | Sundaresh Menon, Aurill Kam, Paul Tan, Tan Liang Ying |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Khoo | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Josephine Low | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Sundaresh Menon | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Aurill Kam | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Paul Tan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Tan Liang Ying | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- The Respondent was convicted of burglary in Hong Kong.
- The Respondent pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary in Hong Kong.
- The Respondent was suffering from Major Depressive Disorder at the time of the offence.
- The Respondent was represented by a leading criminal lawyer in Hong Kong.
- The Respondent argued that he pleaded guilty for extralegal reasons and did not possess criminal intent.
- The Law Society argued that the Respondent's plea of guilt incorporated the element of dishonesty.
- The Hong Kong District Court took into account the psychiatric evidence in sentencing the Respondent.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean, Originating Summons No 131 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 162
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore | |
| Respondent admitted as a solicitor in Hong Kong | |
| Respondent committed burglary in Hong Kong | |
| Respondent pleaded guilty to burglary in Hong Kong District Court | |
| Respondent convicted and sentenced in Hong Kong | |
| Respondent informed the Law Society of his conviction and voluntarily suspended himself from practice | |
| Respondent started consulting Dr. Ko Soo Meng | |
| Respondent employed by the firm in a non-practising capacity | |
| Disciplinary Tribunal appointed to hear and investigate the complaint against the Respondent | |
| Law Society tendered the Amended Charge upon receiving representations from the Respondent at the proceedings before the Tribunal | |
| Respondent appeared before the Hong Kong Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
- Outcome: The court found the Respondent guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Dishonest Conduct
- Breach of Professional Ethics
- Dishonesty
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent was, in fact, guilty of dishonesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Criminal Intent
- Mental State
- Weight of Foreign Conviction
- Outcome: The court held that significant weight ought to be placed upon the Hong Kong conviction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Evidentiary Value
- Collateral Attack
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking off the roll
- Suspension from practice
- Penalty
- Censure
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Discipline
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 320 | Singapore | Referred to by the Respondent as guidance on the approach to be taken in cases involving misconduct stemming from mental infirmity. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 466 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that s 83(2)(h) of the Act is a “catch all” provision. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 490 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that s 83(2)(h) can furnish the legal basis for striking the advocate and solicitor off the roll. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 23 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for striking off the roll an advocate and solicitor guilty of dishonesty. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ong Lilian | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 187 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for striking off the roll an advocate and solicitor guilty of dishonesty. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Caleb Charles James | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 256 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for striking off the roll an advocate and solicitor guilty of dishonesty. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 559 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that work pressure or stress should never be an excuse for a lawyer to act dishonestly. |
| Re Knight Glenn Jeyasingam | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 366 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the paramount considerations of the protection of the public and the preservation of the good name of the profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 266 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the interests of the honourable profession and the courts themselves. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 704 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles laid down by this court for reinstatement to the roll. |
| Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 641 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles laid down by this court for reinstatement to the roll. |
| Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles laid down by this court for reinstatement to the roll. |
| Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1018 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles laid down by this court for reinstatement to the roll. |
| Re Chan Chow Wang | High Court | Yes | [1983-1984] SLR(R) 55 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant may seek to be restored as an advocate and solicitor. |
| Re Lim Cheng Peng | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant may seek to be restored as an advocate and solicitor. |
| Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant may seek to be restored as an advocate and solicitor. |
| Re Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 180 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant may seek to be restored as an advocate and solicitor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Hong Kong Theft Ordinance (Cap 210) | Hong Kong |
| Hong Kong Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) | Hong Kong |
| Evidence Ordinance | Hong Kong |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Burglary
- Dishonesty
- Misconduct
- Legal Profession Act
- Advocate and Solicitor
- Hong Kong Conviction
- Major Depressive Disorder
- Mitigation
- Collateral Attack
- Disciplinary Tribunal
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Misconduct
- Burglary
- Dishonesty
- Singapore
- Hong Kong
- Disciplinary Proceedings
16. Subjects
- Professional Discipline
- Criminal Law
- Regulatory Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession Act
- Criminal Law
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings