Choy Chee Yean v Law Society of Singapore and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 271
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kam Su Cheun Aurill and Lee Pei Pei (Legal Clinic LLC)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 10 of 2019
• Date: 19 November 2019
• Hearing Date: 19 November 2019
• Subject Matter: Section 102 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed),Whether applicant fully rehabilitated,Reinstatement,Interest of the public,Legal Profession
• Year: 2019
• Defendant Counsel: Sanjiv Kumar Rajan, Christine Tee and Simaa Ravichandran (Allen & Gledhill LLP),Jeyendran Jeyapal and Faith Boey (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 271
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Published date: 28 November 2019

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

This is an originating summons by the applicant, Mr Choy Chee Yean, seeking reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore (“the Roll”) pursuant to s 102 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). The applicant was struck off the Roll on 25 May 2010 in Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean [2010] 3 SLR 560 (“the Striking-Off Judgment”), following a criminal conviction for burglary in Hong Kong.

There are two questions before us: whether the applicant should be reinstated; and the applicable conditions, if any, to be imposed.

The parties’ positions

The parties have reached an agreement on the conditions to be imposed upon the applicant’s reinstatement (“the Conditions”): The applicant shall obtain a psychiatric assessment report confirming that he is mentally able and psychologically fit to continue active legal practice not less than two weeks before the expiration of the first practising certificate issued to the applicant upon reinstatement. In the event the first practising certificate issued to the applicant upon reinstatement expires in March 2020, the applicant shall obtain a psychiatric assessment confirming that he is mentally able and psychologically fit to continue active legal practice not less than two weeks before the expiration of (1) the first practising certificate; and (2) a second practising certificate issued to the applicant (“the first condition”). For a period of 12 months from the date of issue of his first practicing certificate after reinstatement herein (provided the applicant engages in active legal practice during this period), the applicant shall not be a sole proprietor, a partner (including managing partner or salaried partner), or a director (including managing director, senior executive director, executive director, senior associate director or associate director) (“the second condition”). For a period of 12 months from the date of issue of his first practicing certificate after reinstatement herein (provided the applicant engages in active legal practice during this period), the applicant shall not hold or receive any client or trust account monies, or operate any client or trust account of any law practice (“the third condition”). For a period of 12 months from the date of issue of his first practicing certificate after reinstatement herein (provided the applicant engages in active legal practice during this period), the applicant shall not be a signatory to any client or trust account of any law practice (“the fourth condition”).

The court, however, must nevertheless scrutinise whether the applicant should be reinstated, and whether the Conditions are indeed appropriate.

Our decision Whether the applicant ought to be reinstated

It is settled jurisprudence that there are three crucial factors that must be considered in a reinstatement application (see Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore [2013] 1 SLR 729 (“Nathan Edmund”) at [10]): The adequacy of the period of time lapsed between disbarment and the reinstatement application; Whether the applicant has been fully and completely rehabilitated; and most importantly, The protection of the public interest and reputation of the legal profession.

Adequacy of time

The applicant has been kept off the Roll for a sufficiently long period of time. It has been nine years since his disbarment (May 2010), and 11 years since his voluntary cessation from active legal practice (April 2008).

As we previously stated at [52] of the Striking Off Judgment, the time period during which a lawyer had voluntarily ceased practice before he was struck off the roll may be taken into account in appropriate circumstances. What is key is whether one’s cessation was truly voluntary and was undertaken in recognition of or in atonement for his transgressions (see Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore [2007] 3 SLR(R) 704 at [16]–[17]).

This was the case at present. The applicant had voluntarily suspended himself from legal practice in early April 2008, before he...