Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua: Disciplinary Proceedings for Solicitor's Misconduct in Divorce Case

In Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua, the Court of Three Judges of Singapore addressed an application for disciplinary action against Koh Tien Hua, a solicitor, for misconduct during divorce proceedings involving Andrew Loh Der Ming. The court found Koh guilty of misrepresenting facts to the court, acting against Loh's instructions, and fraudulently concealing consent orders. The court ordered a three-year suspension for Koh.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges

1.2 Outcome

Solicitor suspended for three years.

1.3 Case Type

Others (Disciplinary Tribunal)

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court suspends solicitor Koh Tien Hua for 3 years for misrepresenting facts and acting against client's instructions in divorce proceedings.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Andrew Loh Der MingApplicantIndividualSuccessful in applicationWon
Koh Tien HuaRespondentIndividualSuspensionLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Narayanan SreenivasanK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Ranita YogeeswaranK&L Gates Straits Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Loh retained Koh to represent him in divorce proceedings.
  2. Koh misrepresented to the court that he had been unable to secure Loh's confirmation on settlement.
  3. Koh misrepresented to the court that his instructions were to contest the application in its entirety.
  4. Koh entered into consent orders against Loh's instructions.
  5. Koh deliberately concealed from Loh that consent orders had been entered.
  6. Loh repeatedly instructed Koh to file an appeal against the orders made by AR Tay.
  7. Koh delayed filing the appeal and attempted to dissuade Loh from pursuing it.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua, Originating Summons No 5 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 84
  2. The Law Society of Singapore v Koh Tien Hua, , [2019] SGDT 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Loh retained Koh to act for him in divorce proceedings.
Koh received instructions from Loh regarding the divorce case.
Hearing of SUM 2009 and SUM 2128 before Assistant Registrar Eugene Tay.
Koh's paralegal informed Loh of the particulars struck out by AR Tay.
Loh expressed unhappiness with the hearing result and wished to appeal.
Koh filed an appeal in respect of SUM 2128.
Koh prepared appeal papers for SUM 2009 and sent them to Loh for review.
Appeal against the orders made in SUM 2009 was filed.
Loh discharged Koh and started representing himself.
Loh obtained notes of argument by applying directly to the FJC.
Loh emailed Koh asking questions about his handling of the matter.
Loh proceeded with his appeal against the orders made by AR Tay in SUM 2009.
Koh responded to Loh's email after involving the Firm's managing partner.
Loh lodged complaints against Koh with the Law Society of Singapore.
Inquiry committee concluded that only the third head of complaint was made out in part.
Council of the Law Society conveyed the recommendation to Loh.
Disciplinary tribunal constituted.
DT released its report.
Loh applied for a High Court judge to review the DT's determination.
Valerie Thean J delivered her decision.
Loh's appeal was allowed, and the matter was directed to proceed to the C3J.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
    • Outcome: The court found that Koh's conduct was unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 1 SLR(R) 466
      • [2019] 4 SLR 1427
  2. Fraudulent or grossly improper conduct
    • Outcome: The court found that Koh's conduct was fraudulent.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 1 SLR(R) 753
  3. Duty of honesty to the court
    • Outcome: The court found that Koh breached his duty of honesty to the court.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Acting against client's instructions
    • Outcome: The court found that Koh acted against his client's instructions.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Action
  2. Sanctions

9. Cause of Actions

  • Professional Misconduct
  • Breach of Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Conduct
  • Legal Ethics

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 837SingaporeCited for the ten charges that merited further investigation.
Law Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o DanielCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 390SingaporeCited for the principle that only the most serious cases should be referred to the Court of Three Judges.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 466SingaporeCited for the definition of 'unbefitting conduct' under s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter LatimerCourt of AppealYes[2019] 4 SLR 1427SingaporeCited for the definition of 'grossly improper conduct' under s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.
Re Lim Kiap Khee; Law Society of Singapore v Lim Kiap KheeHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 398SingaporeCited for the principle that simple negligence is unlikely to constitute 'grossly improper conduct'.
Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh ChopraHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 490SingaporeCited as an example where 'grossly improper conduct' was found when a solicitor preferred another's interest over that of her client.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chun Chuen MalcolmHigh CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 946SingaporeCited as an example where 'grossly improper conduct' was found when a solicitor preferred another's interest over that of her client.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1279SingaporeCited for the authority on striking out an appeal.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 874SingaporeCited for the right of appeal against the decision of a High Court judge made under ss 95, 96 or 97 of the Act.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 926SingaporeCited for the dismissal of the striking-out application and the allowance of the appeal to proceed.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien HuaCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1013SingaporeCited for allowing Loh's appeal and holding that the matter should proceed to the C3J.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 4 SLR 1369SingaporeCited for the principle that misconduct involving dishonesty will often lead to an order for striking off.
Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon YangCourt of AppealYes[2018] 5 SLR 1068SingaporeCited for the principle that where the solicitor's dishonesty is indicative of a character defect, she will almost invariably be struck off the roll.
Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong PengHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 360SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court does not lightly interfere with findings of fact by a lower court or a disciplinary committee.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo PhyllisHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court does not lightly interfere with findings of fact by a lower court or a disciplinary committee.
Law Society of Singapore v Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 829SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court does not lightly interfere with findings of fact by a lower court or a disciplinary committee.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is just as competent as the court below in drawing inferences of fact.
Derry v PeekHouse of LordsYes(1889) 14 App Cas 337England and WalesCited for the test for determining whether a representation is made fraudulently.
Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong GeoffreyHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 966SingaporeCited for the principle that the yardstick for assessing misconduct under s 83(2)(h) should reflect the assessment of the court, not the solicitor's peers.
Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar and othersCourt of AppealYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 753SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor may act fraudulently by intentionally seeking to create a false impression through concealment of the truth.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matterHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will take a stern view of errant solicitors who fail to abide by their duty of candour.
Law Society of Singapore v Ong Cheong WeiCourt of AppealYes[2018] 3 SLR 937SingaporeCited for the principle that it is only in extremely rare cases that the court will depart from striking off for dishonesty.
Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee YeanHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 560SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor was struck off for theft.
Law Society of Singapore v Junaini bin ManinHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 539SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor was struck off for breach of trust.
Law Society of Singapore v Loh Wai Mun DanielHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 261SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor was struck off for breach of trust.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Caleb Charles JamesHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 256SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor was struck off for breach of trust.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian RickHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 68SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may examine all the circumstances of the offence to consider whether the relevant defect in character is implied.
Law Society of Singapore v Rasif DavidHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 955SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor was struck off for abusing the trust of his clients and absconding with their monies.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor failed to deposit client monies into the firm's client account.
Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei FenHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 559SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor forged a court order.
Law Society of Singapore v Quan Chee Seng MichaelHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 140SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a solicitor dishonestly preferred the interests of third parties.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the principle that dishonesty attacks the very core of the trustworthiness and integrity of a solicitor.
Tan Joo Cheng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 219SingaporeCited for the principle that questions of intent are pre-eminently a matter for inference.
Law Society of Singapore v G B VasudevenCourt of AppealYes[2019] 5 SLR 876SingaporeCited for comparison, where the respondent was struck off for deceiving his client and forging court documents.
Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting FaiHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 587SingaporeCited for comparison, where the errant solicitor was suspended for one year for drafting a false affidavit.
Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2017] 4 SLR 707SingaporeCited for comparison, where one solicitor was suspended for 30 months and another for one year for procuring a false attestation.
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 5 SLR 356SingaporeCited for the principle that a record of public service will have limited weight where other sentencing considerations are in play.
Giannarelli and others v Wraith and othersHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1988) 81 ALR 417AustraliaCited for the principle that a barrister's duty to the court is paramount.
Bolton v Law SocietyEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[1994] 1 WLR 512England and WalesCited for the principle that personal mitigating circumstances carry little weight in disciplinary proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Solicitor's Misconduct
  • Consent Orders
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Duty
  • Fraudulent Conduct
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Duty of Candour
  • Client Instructions
  • Legal Ethics

15.2 Keywords

  • disciplinary proceedings
  • solicitor misconduct
  • legal profession
  • Singapore
  • fraud
  • misrepresentation
  • breach of duty

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Solicitor-client relationship95
Disciplinary Proceedings90
Legal Profession Act85
Professional Ethics80
Duty of Candour75
Professional Conduct Rules70
Fraud and Deceit60

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Disciplinary Law