Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 15 January 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 5
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 16 of 2012
• Published date: 17 January 2013
• Year: 2013
• Hearing Date: 17 July 2012,02 July 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mimi Oh (RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Legal profession,disciplinary procedures,duties,client,professional conduct,grossly improper conduct,show cause action
• Citation: [2013] SGHC 5

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

This proceeding, Originating Summons No 16 of 2012, is commenced by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) against the respondent, Chiong Chin May Selena (“Chiong” or “the Respondent”), pursuant to s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) requiring Chiong to show cause why she should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the LPA, following complaints made by Chiong’s client, Heng Siew Lee (Wang XiuLi) (“Heng” or “the Complainant”).

Background facts

Chiong is an advocate and solicitor of some 17 years’ standing, having been admitted as such on 29 April 1995. In September 2009, Chiong was engaged by Heng to handle her proposed divorce proceeding. Sometime in March 2010, Heng lodged a formal complaint with the Council of the Law Society under s 85(1) of the LPA. The essence of the complaint¹ was that Chiong had not diligently handled the matter relating to Heng’s proposed divorce from her husband.

The nub of the complaint made by Heng against Chiong was summarised in a statement prepared by the Law Society (“the Statement”) as follows:² 7. The Complainant claimed that the Respondent failed/ did not keep her:– (a) duly informed/updated on the progress of the Complainant’s divorce matter in the Family Court (“No updates”); (b) [to] duly [explain] to the Complainant, all letters or notices received from the HDB, Family Court and/or the solicitor acting for the Complainant’s husband or otherwise (“No explanations”); (c) … to use all reasonable available legal means consistent with the retainer for the matrimonial matter to advance the interests of the Complainant (“Inappropriate advice/s [sic]”); (d) when the Complainant revoked her instructions on 15th March 2010 for the Respondent to [act] for her in the divorce matter, the Respondent continued on and even thereafter issued a reply to the solicitor acting for the Complainant’s husband without any authority or approval of the said reply (“No authority to act”).

[emphasis in bold in original]

The Statement then went on to detail the facts and events upon which the allegations were based. In the result, the Law Society framed four main charges and four alternative charges against Chiong. The four main charges, which were all brought under s 83(2)(b) of the LPA, were as follows:³

FIRST CHARGE That you, CHIONG CHIN MAY, SELENA, an Advocate and Solicitor, are guilty of a breach of Rule 12 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (“the Rules”), in that you failed to use all reasonably available legal means consistent with your retainer whilst [practising] under DSCT Law Corporation (“DSCT”) and then subsequently with Edmond Peireira [sic] & Partners (“EPP”) to advance the interests of the Complainant, Madam Heng Siew Lee (Wang XiuLi) (“the Complainant”) in the matter entrusted to you by her, i.e. to represent her in her divorce proceedings and such breach of the Rules amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

…

SECOND CHARGE That you, CHIONG CHIN MAY, SELENA, an Advocate and Solicitor, are guilty of a breach of Rule 17 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (“the Rules”), in that you failed to keep the Complainant, Madam Heng Siew Lee (Wang XiuLi) (“the Complainant”) reasonably informed of/updated on the progress of the divorce matter entrusted to you [while practising] with DSCT Law Corporation (“DSCT”) and then subsequently with Edmond Peireira [sic] & Partners (“EPP”) by her and such breach of the Rules amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

…

THIRD CHARGE That you, CHIONG CHIN MAY, SELENA, an Advocate and Solicitor, are guilty of a breach of Rule 21 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) (“the Rules”), in that you failed to explain to the Complainant, Madam Heng Siew Lee (Wang XiuLi) (“the Complainant”), the letters or notices received by you [while practising] with DSCT Law Corporation (“DSCT”) and then subsequently with Edmond Peireira [sic] & Partners (“EPP”), from HDB dated 26th October 2009, the Family Court and/or the solicitors acting for the husband of the Complainant, which affected the Complainant and such breach of the Rules amounts to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

…

FOURTH CHARGE That you, CHIONG CHIN MAY, SELENA, an Advocate and Solicitor, did on or about 19th March 2010 without first seeking the approval of the Complainant, Madam Heng Siew Lee (Wang XiuLi) (“the Complainant”), sen[d] a letter back-dated to 16th March 2010 (“the backdated letter”) to M/s A Alagappan & Co [the law firm acting for the Complainant’s husband], purportedly on behalf of and representing the Complainant in the divorce matter entrusted to you then [practising] with Edmond Peireira [sic] & Partners (“EPP”), when you ha[d] no instructions/authority from the Complainant to do so at that point in time, as the Complainant had on the 15th March 2010, revoked her instructions to you to act any further for her and such acts amount to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

…

[emphasis in bold in original; italics in original omitted]

The wording of the four alternative charges was the same as that of the corresponding main charges, save that the alternative charges were brought under s 83(2)(h) of the LPA. In the alternative charges, the phrase “grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)”⁴ [italics in original omitted] in the main charges was substituted with the phrase “misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)”⁵ [italics in original omitted]. Unless otherwise indicated, all references hereafter to the charges against Chiong should be read as references to the main charges and the corresponding alternative charges collectively.

On 23 March 2011, Chan Sek Keong CJ, in exercise of his power under s 90(1) of the LPA, appointed Chan Leng Sun SC as President and Cheo Chai Beng Johnny as member of a Disciplinary Tribunal (“the DT”) to hear and investigate the charges framed against Chiong.

The first hearing date of the DT was fixed for 15 June 2011. However, Chiong arrived late for the hearing and did not even file any defence or affidavit in reply.⁶ The Law Society did not object to giving Chiong time to file her defence and affidavit, and the hearing was adjourned to 2 August 2011. At the second hearing on 2 August 2011, Heng appeared as witness for the Law Society and Chiong represented herself.

The Law Society filed its closing submissions on 2 September 2011. Chiong was granted an extension of time and only filed her closing submissions on 29 September 2011. Leave was granted by the DT to the Law Society to file reply submissions on 18 November 2011. The DT also gave Chiong an opportunity to respond to the Law Society’s closing submissions, which she did not avail herself of.

The first, second and third charges

In its report dated 9 December 2011 (“the Report”), the DT made the following findings based on the evidence adduced before it (see [36] and [38] of the Report): 36. The particular instances relied on by the Law Society for these Charges are: (a) The Respondent’s inappropriate advice that the Complainant will get whatever she wanted when the Complainant asked about the impact of her husband’s intention to go overseas. (b) The Respondent’s failure to explain and advise that there are obstacles and processes that the Complainant has to overcome even if the husband has gone overseas and does not contest the divorce. A simple divorce would take at least seven months from filing to the final judgment. One with ancillaries to be dealt with, such as the Complainant’s case, would take more than seven months, perhaps a year, to complete. The husband being overseas could occasion further steps to be taken, in serving notice and in relation to enforcement of any maintenance order. (c) In November 2009, the Respondent misled the Complainant that she could not initiate divorce proceedings because HDB had not replied, when HDB had replied on 29 October 2009. (d) The Respondent misled the Complainant that she had filed the divorce proceedings in December 2009 when she only filed it on 20 January 2010. (e) There was unreasonable delay in filing the divorce papers. It was up to the Complainant to constantly ask for updates and information. (f) The Respondent left DSCT [Law Corporation] at the end of January 2010 without informing the Complainant, and subsequently misled the Complainant into following her to [Edmond Pereira & Partners]. (g) The Respondent was late [in attending] the mentions for the variation application on 11 February 2010 and 24 February 2010. (h) The Respondent failed to advise the Complainant to attempt mediation and of the costs consequences of not doing so. (i) The Respondent asked the Complainant to sign an affidavit that the Complainant had no prior opportunity to examine, which contained many mistakes. It was up to the Complainant to revise and prepare another affidavit with the help of a secretary from DSCT [Law Corporation]. (j) The Respondent refused to give a written fee cap/quotation to the Complainant despite...