Law Society of Singapore v. Tan See Leh Jonathan: Legal Profession - Failure to Supervise Paralegal & Fee-Sharing
In Law Society of Singapore v Jonathan Tan See Leh, the Court of Three Judges of Singapore imposed a three-month suspension on Jonathan Tan See Leh, an Advocate and Solicitor, for misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. The misconduct involved failing to adequately supervise his paralegal, Colin Phan, who was an unauthorized person, and entering into a fee-sharing agreement with him. The Court found that Tan's actions undermined public confidence in the legal profession and disregarded professional standards.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
A three-month suspension was imposed on the respondent starting from the date of the judgment.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court suspended Jonathan Tan See Leh for three months for failing to supervise his paralegal and engaging in a fee-sharing agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Sanction Imposed | Won | |
| Jonathan Tan See Leh | Respondent | Individual | Suspension | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Siraj Omar | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Audie Wong Cheng Siew | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- The respondent was admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors on 21 March 1998.
- Colin Phan began working as the respondent’s paralegal in January 2015.
- Colin Phan was an unauthorized person under s 32(2) of the Act.
- Colin Phan sent five emails representing himself as an advocate and solicitor.
- The respondent and Colin Phan had an agreement to share approximately 50% of the respondent’s fees.
- The respondent was charged under s 83(2)(b) and s 83(2)(h) of the Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh Jonathan, Originating Summons No 13 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 102
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore | |
| Colin Phan began working as the respondent’s paralegal | |
| Law Society’s Statement of Case was dated | |
| Respondent voluntarily ceased to practise | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Failure to Supervise Paralegal
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent failed to exercise adequate supervision of Colin Phan, undermining public confidence in the legal profession.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 699
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401
- Fee-Sharing Agreement with Unauthorized Person
- Outcome: The court found that the fee arrangement between the respondent and Colin Phan facilitated the commission of an offence and undermined the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 LR(R) 197
8. Remedies Sought
- Sanction
- Suspension
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Failure to Supervise
- Fee-Sharing with Unauthorized Person
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1369 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that the respondent’s misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of a sanction under s 83(1) of the Act. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chwee Wan Allan | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 699 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proper supervision is vital for the protection of the public and preserves public confidence in the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin and another | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proper supervision is vital for the protection of the public and preserves public confidence in the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 LR(R) 197 | Singapore | Cited as an example of unethical and unprofessional conduct that undermines the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Mahadevan Lukshumayeh and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 116 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an unauthorized person who operates without a practising certificate exposes his or her clients to possible loss in the process because such an unauthorized person does not possess the necessary professional indemnity insurance cover. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that cases involving grossly improper conduct without dishonesty or deceit generally attract a monetary penalty, but the presence of aggravating factors may justify the imposition of more severe sanctions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that cases involving grossly improper conduct without dishonesty or deceit generally attract a monetary penalty, but the presence of aggravating factors may justify the imposition of more severe sanctions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 266 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any sanction must not only have a punitive, but also a deterrent effect. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 859 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any sanction must not only have a punitive, but also a deterrent effect. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| r 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (2010 Rev Ed) |
| r 39 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 33 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| ss 33(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 35A of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 36(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Paralegal
- Supervision
- Fee-Sharing
- Unauthorized Person
- Misconduct
- Suspension
- Legal Profession Act
- Professional Conduct Rules
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Supervision
- Paralegal
- Fee-Sharing
- Singapore
- Disciplinary Action
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Supervision of paralegal | 85 |
| Professional Ethics | 80 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 75 |
| Fee-sharing agreement | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Law Society Disciplinary Proceedings