Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore: Disciplinary Proceedings & Professional Conduct
In Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Andrew Loh Der Ming for the Law Society to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal regarding his complaints against lawyer Koh Tien Hua. Loh's complaints stemmed from Koh's handling of Loh's divorce suit. The court granted the application in part, directing the Law Society to apply for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate complaints regarding Koh's conduct in misleading the court and acting against instructions. The court dismissed the application concerning the complaint that Koh had placed himself in a position of conflict of interest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application granted in part.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Andrew Loh filed a complaint against lawyer Koh Tien Hua. The High Court directed the Law Society to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal for further investigation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loh Der Ming Andrew | Applicant | Individual | Application granted in part | Partial | Loh Der Ming Andrew |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application dismissed in part | Partial | Prabhakaran Narayanan Nair |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Loh Der Ming Andrew | Independent Practitioner |
| Prabhakaran Narayanan Nair | Derrick Wong & Lim BC LLP |
4. Facts
- Applicant filed complaints against Mr. Koh for professional services.
- Complaints were referred to an Inquiry Committee.
- IC recommended a penalty for acting against instructions.
- Council adopted the IC’s recommendations.
- Applicant sought High Court direction for a Disciplinary Tribunal.
- Mr. Koh acted for the Applicant in a divorce suit.
- Mr. Koh conceded amendments to the SOP without instructions.
5. Formal Citations
- Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 350 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 256
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Divorce Suit commenced | |
| Applicant met Mr. Koh | |
| Defendant withdrew her Defence in the Divorce Suit | |
| Applicant e-mailed Mr Koh to seek help with the Divorce Suit | |
| Applicant met Mr Koh and signed the warrant for Mr Koh to act for him | |
| Applicant e-mailed Mr Koh with responses to the Co-Defendant’s striking out application | |
| Divorce Applications were heard before Assistant Registrar Eugene Tay | |
| Notice of Appeal against Non-Disclosure Order was filed | |
| Notice of Appeal in respect of Striking Out Order was filed | |
| Applicant filed a notice of intention to act in person in place of Mr Koh | |
| Mr Koh sent a letter to the Applicant waiving all legal fees and refunding the Applicant’s deposits | |
| Applicant received the NEs for the 27 July hearing from the Court | |
| Some particulars that had earlier been ordered by AR Tay to be struck out were restored | |
| Orders were made by the Judge to vary the scope of the Non-Disclosure Order by consent of the Applicant and the Co-Defendant | |
| Applicant succeeded in obtaining an interim judgment in the Divorce Suit | |
| Applicant sent a letter of complaint to the Law Society | |
| The IC (Inquiry Committee No 30 of 2016) was constituted by the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel | |
| The IC wrote to Mr Koh inviting him to respond to the complaints | |
| Applicant attended the IC hearing at the Law Society | |
| The Law Society informed the Applicant that the Council had accepted and adopted the findings and recommendations of the IC | |
| Applicant filed this application | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Misleading the Court
- Outcome: The court found a prima facie case of ethical breach and directed further investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Untrue statements to the court
- Breach of duty to be truthful
- Acting Against Client Instructions
- Outcome: The court found a prima facie case of ethical breach and directed further investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with instructions
- Deliberate disregard of instructions
- Suppression of information from client
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The court found no prima facie case of conflict of interest.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Acting for opposing parties
- Prior relationship with opposing counsel
8. Remedies Sought
- Appointment of Disciplinary Tribunal
- Review of Council's Decision
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
- Breach of Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 197 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of the nature of the offence and circumstances in determining unfitness for the profession. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Ong Cheong Wei | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2017] SGDT 4 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of the nature of the offence and circumstances in determining unfitness for the profession. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 455 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that complaints against advocates and solicitors should first be adjudged by their peers. |
| Tan Yeow Khoon and another v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 163 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that complaints against advocates and solicitors should first be adjudged by their peers. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 779 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that complaints against advocates and solicitors should first be adjudged by their peers. |
| Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 485 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the Inquiry Committee to investigate complaints and consider whether a prima facie case for formal investigation has been made out. |
| Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 186 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the Inquiry Committee to determine whether there was a prima facie case which would merit formal investigation. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chow Wang | N/A | Yes | [1974-1976] SLR(R) 237 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the Inquiry Committee to determine whether there was a prima facie case which would merit formal investigation. |
| Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 404 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the Inquiry Committee as the investigator. |
| Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited regarding the function of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into complaints, to eliminate frivolous complaints and to ensure that only complaints which have been prima facie established will proceed to be heard formally and determined by the Disciplinary Tribunal. |
| Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 192 | Singapore | Cited for describing the disciplinary framework established under the LPA. |
| Yusuf Jumabhoy v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 63 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Council's obligation to give reasons for its decision. |
| Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 484 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Council's duty to furnish independent reasons for its decisions under s 87(1) of the LPA. |
| Wong Juan Swee v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 429 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of review on appeal, clarifying that the Court should be slow to disturb or interfere with the Council’s findings of fact. |
| Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inherent power of the superior courts to review the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts and tribunals or other public bodies discharging public functions. |
| Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 449 | Singapore | Cited regarding the lawyer's duty of honesty to the Court. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nor-ain bte Abu Bakar | N/A | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited regarding the lawyer's duty of honesty to the Court. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Leong Pek Gan | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 165 | Singapore | Cited regarding the adverse inference that may be drawn against a lawyer in the absence of credible contemporaneous records. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (GN No S 706/2015) |
| Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (GN No S 706/2015) |
| Rule 9(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
| Rule 56 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2010 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Section 96 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Section 66 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Inquiry Committee
- Law Society
- Professional Conduct
- Consent Order
- Striking Out Order
- Misleading the Court
- Conflict of Interest
- Legal Profession Act
- SOP (Statement of Particulars)
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Professional Misconduct
- Singapore
- Law Society
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Discipline
- Regulatory Proceedings
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Conduct