Lee Ji En

Lee Ji En is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2019 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in judicial review and misuse of drugs act. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 20% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Lee Ji En has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal procedure and judicial review.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Procedure	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Discovery of documents	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Leave	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Leave to commence judicial review	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Lee Ji En has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Lee Ji En has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ascendant Legal LLC	3 cases	60% of cases	Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of PP's Decision on Substantive Assistance under Misuse of Drugs Act(Apr 2022) EFG Bank AG v Surewin Worldwide: Costs Allocation After Security Interest Ruling(Jan 2022) Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision on Certificate of Substantive Assistance(Apr 2020)
BMS Law LLC	2 cases	40% of cases	Lim Chit Foo v Public Prosecutor: Legality of Multiple Trials & Standing Down Charges in IRAS PIC Scheme Fraud(Nov 2019) Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Application for Discovery of Documents in Judicial Review Proceedings(Sep 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Lee Ji En's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 1 (20%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.0 parties avg	2.0	60%
Neutral	14.0 parties avg	4.0	20%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2019	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Lee Ji En's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(60%)	60%
Neutral	1(20%)	20%
Partial	1(20%)	20%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2019	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of PP's Decision on Substantive Assistance under Misuse of Drugs Act 20 Apr 2022 Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (Appellant)Lost	20 Apr 2022	Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe appellant's appeal was dismissed.
2	EFG Bank AG v Surewin Worldwide: Costs Allocation After Security Interest Ruling 30 Jan 2022 EFG Wealth Solutions (Singapore) Ltd (Defendant)Neutral	30 Jan 2022	EFG Wealth Solutions (Singapore) Ltd (Defendant): Not entitled to recover costsThe third defendant shall not be entitled to recover any of its costs or disbursements of or incidental to this action from the second defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision on Certificate of Substantive Assistance 23 Apr 2020 Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (Applicant)Lost	23 Apr 2020	Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (Applicant): Application dismissedApplication for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was dismissed.
4	Lim Chit Foo v Public Prosecutor: Legality of Multiple Trials & Standing Down Charges in IRAS PIC Scheme Fraud 18 Nov 2019 Lim Chit Foo (Applicant)Partial	18 Nov 2019	Lim Chit Foo (Applicant): Application partially dismissedThe application for leave to state a case on the issue of bail was dismissed. The court determined that the statutory basis for standing down charges is Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5	Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Application for Discovery of Documents in Judicial Review Proceedings 16 Sep 2019 Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (Applicant)Lost	16 Sep 2019	Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (Applicant): Application DismissedApplication for discovery and leave to serve interrogatories dismissed.