Jamie Pang

Jamie Pang is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in constitutional law and criminal revision. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 40% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jamie Pang has demonstrated expertise across 20 primary practice areas, with significant experience in constitutional law and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Constitutional Law	3 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Mental Capacity Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Extension of Time	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Prison Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Presidential Election	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jamie Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jamie Pang has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 5 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	5 cases	100% of cases	Adeeb Ahmed Khan v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time to Appeal Sentence for Drug Offences Denied(Sep 2022) Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General: Challenge to Section 377A Fails(Mar 2020) Law Society of Singapore v. Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin: Disciplinary Review for Mental Capacity & Overcharging(Jan 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Jamie Pang's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.8
Complex Cases: 2 (40%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	52.8 parties avg	2.8	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Jamie Pang's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	5(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	6,000.00	6,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Adeeb Ahmed Khan v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time to Appeal Sentence for Drug Offences Denied 11 Sep 2022 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	11 Sep 2022	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Motion DismissedThe respondent successfully opposed the applicant's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against his sentence.
2	Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General: Challenge to Section 377A Fails 29 Mar 2020 Attorney-General (Defendant)Won	29 Mar 2020	Attorney-General (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court dismissed the plaintiff's application.
3	Law Society of Singapore v. Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin: Disciplinary Review for Mental Capacity & Overcharging 07 Jan 2020 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	07 Jan 2020	Attorney-General (Applicant): Appeal AllowedDetermination set aside; new Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed.
4	Ravi v Attorney-General: Challenge to Elected Presidency Scheme under Article 12 of Constitution 09 Jul 2017 Attorney-General (Defendant)Won	09 Jul 2017	Attorney-General (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the Defendant; costs awarded in the amount of $6,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Madan Mohan Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Singapore Prison Service Hair Grooming Policy 24 Feb 2015 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	24 Feb 2015	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application to Strike Out GrantedThe respondent's application to strike out the originating summons was granted.