Law Society v. Lun Yaodong Clarence: Breach of Legal Profession Rules & Trainee Supervision
In Law Society of Singapore v Clarence Lun Yaodong, the Court of Three Judges addressed an application by the Law Society of Singapore to sanction Mr. Lun for breaching the Legal Profession Act by acting as a supervising solicitor for two practice trainees without holding the required certification. The Disciplinary Tribunal found cause of sufficient gravity in relation to three charges. The court imposed a suspension of 18 months.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Suspension of 18 months imposed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Clarence Lun Yaodong faced disciplinary action for breaching Legal Profession Rules by supervising trainees without proper certification. The court suspended him for 18 months.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application allowed in part | Partial | |
| Clarence Lun Yaodong | Respondent | Individual | Sanctioned | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Respondent supervised two practice trainees without meeting the minimum practice certificate requirements.
- Respondent did not check his eligibility to be a supervising solicitor before taking on the trainees.
- Respondent continued to direct Mr. Lim to perform substantive work after discovering his ineligibility.
- Mr. Lim had to apply for abridgement of time to file papers for admission due to the invalid training period.
- Respondent attempted to shift blame to Mr. Goh for ensuring proper supervision of trainees.
- Respondent was aware of rules affecting his ability to become a director but did not check rules for supervising trainees.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence, Originating Application No 3 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 269
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent admitted as an advocate and solicitor | |
| Respondent joined Foxwood LLC | |
| Respondent offered training contract to Mr. Lim Teng Jie | |
| Respondent offered training contract to Ms. Trinisha Ann Sunil | |
| Mr. Lim commenced training contract with Foxwood | |
| Ms. Sunil commenced training contract with Foxwood | |
| Ms. Sunil informed respondent of her intention to leave | |
| Ms. Sunil's last day of work at Foxwood | |
| Respondent discovered he was not qualified to act as supervising solicitor | |
| Respondent reminded Ms. Sunil to make payment of her salary in lieu of notice | |
| Ms. Sunil made payment of her salary in lieu of notice | |
| Respondent presented options to Mr. Lim regarding his training contract | |
| Mr. Lim resigned from Foxwood | |
| Mr. Lim began training contract with Wee Swee Teow LLP | |
| Mr. Lim applied for abridgement of time to file papers for admission | |
| Mr. Lim participated in the mass call | |
| Applicant referred complaint regarding the respondent to an Inquiry Committee | |
| Inquiry Committee issued Revised Report | |
| Law Society informed the respondent that it disagreed with the IC’s Revised Report | |
| Respondent messaged Ms. Sunil | |
| Respondent offered to make restitution to Ms. Sunil | |
| Applicant issued its Statement of Case | |
| Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed | |
| Applicant amended Statement of Case | |
| Applicant amended Statement of Case | |
| Disciplinary Tribunal issued its report | |
| Court hearing date | |
| Judgment date | |
| Suspension commenced |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Legal Profession (Admission) Rules
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent breached Rule 18(1)(b) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to meet supervising solicitor requirements
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's conduct amounted to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to ensure proper supervision of trainees
- Acting in a manner inconsistent with public interest
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
- Monetary Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Breach of Legal Profession (Admission) Rules
- Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 830 | Singapore | Cited for the principal purposes of disciplinary proceedings: to protect the public and uphold confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh Jonathan | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 418 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that public confidence is an indispensable element in the fabric of the justice system. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 266 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the administration of justice depends upon public confidence in the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 320 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all solicitors ought to be familiar with the rules made under the LPA. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2022] SGHC 185 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that frivolous attempts to deflect blame and responsibility undermine the existence of remorse. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2022] SGHC 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that frivolous attempts to deflect blame and responsibility undermine the existence of remorse. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel | Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2020] SGDT 2 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that frivolous attempts to deflect blame and responsibility undermine the existence of remorse. |
| Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 461 and others | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 777 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a term should be read consistently across two provisions. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1141 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing considerations relevant in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ismail bin Atan | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 746 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a solicitor will be liable to be struck off if he conducts himself in a way that falls below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, and brings grave dishonour to the profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a character defect rendering a solicitor unfit to be a member of the legal profession. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 736 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should compare the case with precedents to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2013] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that aggravating circumstances may conduce towards a suspension over a monetary penalty. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ong Ying Ping | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 583 | Singapore | Compared to the present case in determining the appropriate sanction. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng Christopher | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 877 | Singapore | Cited for the spectrum of culpability and attendant sentencing consequences in relation to breaches of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Supervising Solicitor
- Practice Trainee
- Practising Certificate
- Admission Rules
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Foxwood LLC
- Legal Profession Act
- Professional Conduct
- Misconduct
- Suspension
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Supervising Solicitor
- Practice Trainee
- Disciplinary Action
- Singapore
- Suspension
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 90 |
| Professional Ethics | 85 |
| Pupillage | 60 |
| Employment Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Regulatory Compliance