Lum Guo Rong

Lum Guo Rong is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2017 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and misuse of drugs act. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 17% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated expertise across 18 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal procedure and criminal law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Procedure	5 cases	15% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	5 cases	15% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	4 cases	12% of total caseload	Highly Specialized96% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal conspiracy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Division of Matrimonial Property	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong 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	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Gender Dysphoria	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Children and Young Persons Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sexual Offences	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Lum Guo Rong 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

Lum Guo Rong has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Lexcompass LLC	6 cases	100% of cases	Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act(Jul 2022) Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan: Drug Trafficking Conspiracy under Misuse of Drugs Act(Feb 2022) CHT v CHU: Division of Matrimonial Assets Appeal(Apr 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Lum Guo Rong's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 1 (17%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	52.6 parties avg	2.6	83%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	17%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	22.5 parties avg	2.5

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Lum Guo Rong's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	5(83%)	83%
Partial	1(17%)	17%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act 04 Jul 2022 Chong Hoon Cheong (Appellant)Lost	04 Jul 2022	Chong Hoon Cheong (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed.
2	Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan: Drug Trafficking Conspiracy under Misuse of Drugs Act 24 Feb 2022 Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (Defendant)Lost	24 Feb 2022	Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (Defendant): Convicted on all chargesConvicted of possessing diamorphine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.
3	CHT v CHU: Division of Matrimonial Assets Appeal 13 Apr 2021 CHU (Respondent, Plaintiff)Partial	13 Apr 2021	CHU (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal partially allowedAppeal allowed to the extent that the total amounts to which she and the husband are entitled in respect of Category 2 assets are varied to $3,307,379.75 (wife) and $4,095,850.49 (husband).
4	PP v Sritharan K Raja Rajan: Misuse of Drugs Act - Importation of Diamorphine 10 Jun 2020 Sritharan K Raja Rajan (Defendant)Lost	10 Jun 2020	Sritharan K Raja Rajan (Defendant): ConvictedThe accused was convicted of importing diamorphine.
5	PP v Imran, Pragas, Tamil: Drug Trafficking Conspiracy under Misuse of Drugs Act 01 Jul 2019 Imran bin Mohd Arip (Defendant)Lost	01 Jul 2019	Imran bin Mohd Arip (Defendant): ConvictedConvicted under s 5(1)(a) read with s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act for abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic in not less than 19.42g of diamorphine and sentenced to death.
6	Public Prosecutor v BAB: Statutory Interpretation of Penal Code s 376A(1)(b) & Gender of Offender 05 Jan 2017 BAB (Respondent)Lost	05 Jan 2017	BAB (Respondent): Conviction reinstatedThe respondent's conviction on the six charges under s 376A(1)(b) and the one charge under s 7(a) of the CYPA were reinstated.