Law Society v Seah Choon Huat Johnny: Professional Misconduct & Disciplinary Sanctions

The Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges heard two applications, OA 1 and OA 6, by the Law Society of Singapore against Mr. Seah Choon Huat Johnny, seeking disciplinary sanctions under the Legal Profession Act for professional misconduct. OA 1 involved Mr. Seah's failure to properly supervise staff, leading to the erroneous filing of a Notice of Discontinuance and failure to provide timely advice to a client. OA 6 concerned multiple instances of misconduct in handling a client's divorce proceedings, including failure to act timeously, attend court, and hand over documents to new counsel. The court imposed a six-month suspension for OA 1 and a four-year suspension for OA 6, to run consecutively.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges

1.2 Outcome

Disciplinary sanctions imposed; suspension of six months for OA 1 and four years for OA 6, to run consecutively.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Law Society sanctions Seah Choon Huat Johnny for professional misconduct involving client neglect and misrepresentation, resulting in suspension.

1.7 Decision Date

24 January 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
The Law Society of Singapore	Applicant	Statutory Board	Application Granted	Won	Jill Ann Koh Ying of WongPartnership LLP Cheong Mun Wai Stephen of Sharpe & Jagger LLC Nicole Seah of WongPartnership LLP
Seah Choon Huat Johnny	Respondent	Individual	Sanctioned	Lost	Giam Chin Toon of Wee Swee Teow LLP Luke Calvin Chew Chun Wei of Wee Swee Teow LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Justice of the Court of the Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jill Ann Koh Ying	WongPartnership LLP
Cheong Mun Wai Stephen	Sharpe & Jagger LLC
Nicole Seah	WongPartnership LLP
Giam Chin Toon	Wee Swee Teow LLP
Luke Calvin Chew Chun Wei	Wee Swee Teow LLP

4. Facts

Mr. Seah's staff mistakenly filed a Notice of Discontinuance (NOD) in Suit 960 without client instructions.
Mr. Seah failed to inform his client, Mr. LKS, about the erroneously filed NOD for seven weeks.
Mr. Seah allowed opposing counsel to mention the NOD in court, misrepresenting that it was filed with consent.
Mr. Seah failed to attend a Case Conference and did not explain his absence to the court.
Mr. Seah failed to act timeously on Mdm Tan’s instructions to vary the ancillary matters order.
Mr. Seah misled Mdm Tan into thinking he was taking action when he was not.
Mr. Seah failed to hand over documents to Mdm Tan’s new solicitors in a timely manner.

5. Formal Citations

Law Society of Singapore v Seah Choon Huat Johnny and another matter, Originating Application Nos 1 of 2023 and 6 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 19

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1981-01-14	Mr. Seah called to the bar in Singapore
2016-09-08	Seah & Co filed Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim for Mr. Lim Kim Seng in Suit 960
2016-10-06	Defendant in Suit 960 filed the Defence
2016-11-17	Seah & Co filed a Notice of Discontinuance in Suit 960
2016-11-18	Hearing of HC/SUM 5334/2016 adjourned
2016-11-21	Mr. Lim mentioned on Mr. Seah’s behalf for SUM 5369
2016-12-07	Mr. Lim proposed costs of $12,000 for Suit 960
2016-12-08	Pre-trial conference vacated
2016-12-31	Mr. Seah called Mr. LKS to inform him of error in Suit 960
2017-01-04	Seah & Co sent a letter to Mr. LKS stating that Suit 960 had been discontinued
2015-07-23	Mdm Tan obtained interim judgment against Mr. Sng
2014-11-28	Family Justice Courts dealt with ancillary matters arising out of the divorce by way of ORC 13
2015-01-13	Certificate of Final Judgment was issued
2015-12-04	Completion of the sale of the Flat
2016-11-25	Seah & Co filed, on behalf of Mdm Tan, a summons in D 1079 to vary ORC 13, vide SUM 4075
2016-12-22	First Case Conference for SUM 4075
2017-01-10	Case Conference adjourned to 10 January 2017
2019-04-01	Mr. LKS appointed Mr. Kertar Singh of K&S to take over Suit 960 from Seah & Co
2021-03-05	Mdm Tan filed a complaint to the Law Society regarding Mr Seah
2021-04-16	Mr. Sng passed away
2021-01-15	Mdm Tan sent a series of anxious WhatsApp messages to Mr Seah
2021-01-28	TOO LLC wrote to Seah & Co seeking an urgent handover of the documents in D 1079
2021-02-08	TOO LLC wrote a second time to Seah & Co
2021-03-03	TOO LLC wrote a third time to Seah & Co
2021-03-12	TOO LLC wrote a fourth time to Seah & Co
2021-05-03	Mr. LKS lodged a complaint against Mr. Seah to the Law Society
2021-09-24	An inquiry committee was constituted
2021-12-09	TOO LLC filed on behalf of Mdm Tan, a writ of summons vide DC/DC 2582/2021 against Mr Seah
2021-12-09	TOO LLC filed on behalf of Mdm Tan, an originating summons vide HC/OS 1258/2021
2022-02-15	Mr. Seah filed a reply affidavit in OS 1258
2022-02-24	The Inquiry Committee produced its report
2022-03-15	Mr. Seah handed over some documents in his possession relating to the sale of the Flat to TOO LLC
2022-04-21	Mr. Seah filed a second reply affidavit in OS 1258
2022-04-29	TOO LLC sent a letter to Mr Seah
2022-05-06	The Inquiry Committee produced its further report
2022-07-08	A disciplinary tribunal comprising Mr Abraham Vergis SC and Ms Chiang Ju Hua Audrey were appointed
2022-08-08	The court heard OS 1258 and no orders were made
2022-08-15	Mdm Tan filed her Statement of Claim in Suit 2582
2022-09-12	Default judgment for liability was entered against Mr Seah
2022-09-23	Mr Seah’s solicitors, Wee Swee Teow LLP, wrote to K&S to renegotiate the compensation sum
2022-10-04	K&S replied and insisted on a compensation sum of $50,000
2022-10-10	Mr. Seah informed the 1st DT that he intended to admit to the charges
2022-10-17	Mr. Seah admitted to the Agreed Statement of Facts dated 17 October 2022 and the charges therein
2022-10-27	The parties appeared before the 1st DT for oral submissions
2022-11-30	The 2nd DT conducted a full-day evidential hearing
2023-02-06	Mr. Seah and Mr. LKS agreed to a settlement sum of $38,888
2023-02-22	The 1st DT recorded its findings in the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal in DT/14/2022
2023-04-05	Mr. Seah provided Mr. LKS an undertaking to indemnify Mr. LKS against the legal costs
2023-04-27	The 2nd DT delivered its decision
2023-10-17	We heard the parties
2024-01-25	Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court)

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Seah's conduct constituted breaches of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and warranted disciplinary sanctions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to supervise staff
  - Failure to provide timely advice
  - Failure to act with reasonable diligence
  - Failure to keep client informed
  - Failure to respond to communications
  - Lack of courtesy and fairness to other legal practitioners
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 4 SLR 1369
  - [2022] 3 SLR 830
  - [2022] SGHC 269
Appropriate Sanction for Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court imposed a six-month suspension for OA 1 and a four-year suspension for OA 6, to run consecutively, considering the severity and nature of the misconduct, mitigating factors, and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Factors considered in determining the length of suspension
  - Mitigating circumstances
  - Aggravating circumstances
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] SGHC 5
  - [2013] 3 SLR 875
  - [2020] 4 SLR 1171
  - [2023] 3 SLR 966
  - [2022] 3 SLR 1417
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 231
  - [2018] 5 SLR 799
  - [2017] 5 SLR 356

8. Remedies Sought

Disciplinary Sanctions
Suspension from Practice

9. Cause of Actions

Professional Negligence
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Breach of Contract (Retainer)

10. Practice Areas

Regulatory Law
Professional Responsibility

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matter	Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 1369	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the conduct must be sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions under s 83(1) of the LPA.
Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 3 SLR 830	Singapore	Cited for the principal purpose of disciplinary proceedings, namely, to protect the public and uphold confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC 269	Singapore	Cited for the principal purpose of disciplinary proceedings, namely, to protect the public and uphold confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena	High Court	No	[2013] SGHC 5	Singapore	Referred to for comparison of facts and appropriate sanctions.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju	High Court	No	[2013] 3 SLR 875	Singapore	Referred to for comparison of facts and appropriate sanctions.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer	High Court	No	[2020] 4 SLR 1171	Singapore	Referred to for comparison of facts and appropriate sanctions.
Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat	High Court	No	[2023] 3 SLR 966	Singapore	Referred to for comparison of facts and appropriate sanctions.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 3 SLR 1417	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the paramount interests in sentencing solicitors are the protection of the public and the standing of the profession, and personal mitigating circumstances carry little weight.
Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham	High Court	No	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 231	Singapore	Referred to for comparison of facts and appropriate sanctions.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 799	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that a multiple offender who has committed unrelated offences should be separately punished for each offence, and this should be achieved by an order that the individual sentences run consecutively.
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 356	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a record of public service would have limited weight where other sentencing considerations were at play.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Professional Misconduct
Disciplinary Tribunal
Notice of Discontinuance
Legal Profession Act
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
Duty of Care
Client Instructions
Timely Advice
Conflict of Interest
Remorse
Mitigation
Suspension

15.2 Keywords

Legal Profession
Professional Misconduct
Disciplinary Action
Singapore
Law Society
Suspension
Negligence
Ethics

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings	95
Legal Profession Act	90
Duty of Candour	60
Professional Negligence	50
Costs	40
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Professional Responsibility
Regulatory Compliance