Law Society of Singapore v Chia Chwee Imm Helen Mrs Helen Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 05 September 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGHC 214
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1163 of 2020 (Summons No 5437 of 2021)
• Published date: 08 September 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 02 August 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peh Aik Hin, Rebecca Chia Su Min and Sampson Lim Jie Hao (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Professional conduct,Breach,Solicitor-client relationship,Transactions with client
• Citation: [2022] SGHC 214

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction

This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) brought against Ms Chia Chwee Imm Helen Mrs Helen Thomas (the “Respondent”), for the Respondent to be sanctioned under s 82A(12) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”), and to pay for the costs of and incidental to the action, including the costs of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”).

The Respondent faced two charges for professional misconduct before the DT (the “Charges”). The first charge was in relation to the Respondent acting for a client (the “Complainant”) in the Complainant’s custody dispute as an advocate and solicitor without a valid practising certificate (“PC”) between 17 December 2016 and 30 May 2018, as the Respondent was bankrupt at the material time. The subject matter of the second charge related to prohibited borrowing transactions, where the Respondent had borrowed or arranged for her husband to borrow $40,000 from the Complainant, and she had separately borrowed another $20,000 from the Complainant’s mother. All these transactions were entered into whilst the Respondent was purportedly acting as the Complainant’s lawyer. The DT issued its determination on 26 October 2021, finding that the Charges against the Respondent were made out, and that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 82A(3)(a) of the LPA.

After carefully considering the parties’ written as well as oral submissions, we found that there was due cause for disciplinary action against the Respondent in relation to both Charges, and struck the Respondent off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors. We gave brief oral grounds at the conclusion of the hearing. We now provide the detailed grounds for our decision.

Background

The present application arose from the complaint against the Respondent by the Complainant, following which the Honourable Chief Justice granted leave for the appointment of a DT in Law Society of Singapore v Chia Chwee Imm Helen Mrs Helen Thomas [2021] 5 SLR 838 (“Law Society v Helen Chia”). The facts were largely undisputed between parties.

The Respondent was admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 11 August 1999. Between 17 December 2016 and 30 May 2018, the Respondent did not have a PC, as she was an undischarged bankrupt during this period. The bankruptcy order was made against the Respondent on 15 December 2016, and was annulled on 22 May 2018.

On 18 December 2016, the Complainant contacted the Respondent, seeking an appointment for the Respondent’s advice on a care and custody matter for the Complainant’s son. They met in the Respondent’s office the following day for the first consultation, and exchanged text messages and emails from 19 December to 31 December 2016 to discuss the matter. They did not communicate again until 24 August 2017.

Around 24 August 2017, the Complainant contacted the Respondent regarding the custody issue, following which the Complainant formally engaged the Respondent to act for the Complainant in the custody dispute. On 9 November 2017, the Respondent advised the Complainant to apply to the Family Justice Courts in respect of the care and custody matter. The Respondent also assisted with the preparation of the court documents and drafted e-mails and/or letters to the opposing party for the same matter, but did not personally attend court.

It was not until 18 December 2017 that the Respondent informed the Complainant, for the first time, that she was an undischarged bankrupt (the “Disclosure”). This took place during a meeting between the Respondent and the Complainant. On the same day, the Respondent borrowed $40,000 from the Complainant ostensibly for the purpose of annulling the bankruptcy order. The Complainant first provided the Respondent with $3,000 in cash, and provided $37,000 in cash the following day. The Respondent agreed to repay $40,000 to the Complainant in April 2018. Separately, the Respondent also approached the Complainant’s mother to borrow $20,000 around 2 February 2018. This loan was to be repaid a few weeks after February 2018. All of the loans were repaid towards the end of September 2018 after the Complainant threatened to commence bankruptcy proceedings.

It was crucial that after the Disclosure, the Respondent continued to act for the Complainant. In a WhatsApp message to the Complainant on 10 January 2018, the Respondent stated that she had had the annulment of the bankruptcy order “sorted”, and that the case file against her would be closed. But in actuality, the bankruptcy order was not annulled until 22 May 2018, four months after the said message was sent.

As for the Complainant’s custody proceedings, the hearings were held on 11 April, with oral grounds delivered by 8 May 2018. It was Mr Sean Say (“Mr Say”) who represented the Complainant in these proceedings. The Complainant formally discharged the Respondent on 21 September 2018.

Hearings before the Disciplinary Tribunal

Of the two Charges the Respondent faced before the DT, the first charge against the Respondent is as follows (the “First Charge”):

You, [the Respondent], an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between 17 December 2016 to 30 May 2018 (both dates inclusive), when you did not have in force a practising certificate, you acted as an advocate or a solicitor for the Complainant in relation to the care and custody matter concerning the Complainant’s son and/or wilfully or falsely pretended and/or represented yourself to be duly authori[s]ed to act as an advocate or a solicitor for the Complainant, in that: (1) You met with and/or advised the Complainant in relation to the said care and custody matter; (2) You prepared and/or drafted emails and/or letters to the opposing party in respect of the said care and custody matter on behalf of the Complainant as the Complainant’s lawyer; (3) You prepared and/or drafted court documents for the Complainant in respect of the Family Justice Courts proceedings concerning the said care and custody proceedings; (4) You discussed and/or charged your fees for acting for the Complainant in the said care and custody matter with the Complainant; (5) You represented to the Complainant that you were handling the Complainant’s said care and custody matter personally; (6) You represented to the Complainant that you were supervising and/or working with other lawyers on the Complainant’s said care and custody matter; and/or (7) You represented to the Complainant that you would and/or were duly authori[s]ed to represent her at the hearings before the Family Justice Courts for the said care and custody matter,

and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an hono[u]rable profession within the meaning of Section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

The second charge against the Respondent is as follows (the “Second Charge”):

You, [the Respondent], an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you borrowed and/or instructed, procured and/or arranged for your husband, …, to borrow a sum of S$40,000 from the Complainant on or around 18 and 19 December 2017, and a further sum of S$20,000 from the Complainant’s mother in or around February 2018, in circumstances where: (1) The said loans were borrowed by you and/or on your behalf during the period from 17 December 2016 to 30 May 2018 (both dates inclusive) when you were acting as an advocate or a solicitor for the Complainant in relation to the care and custody matter concerning the Complainant’s son and/or wilfully or falsely pretending and/or representing yourself to be duly authori[s]ed to act as an advocate or a solicitor for the Complainant while not having in force a practising certificate; (2) The said loans were borrowed by you and/or on your behalf on the basis and/or pretext that the said loans would enable you to discharge and/or annul your bankruptcy and/or allow you to continue to act for and/or represent the Complainant in said care and custody matter; (3) The said loans were provided by the Complainant and her mother without them seeking independent legal advice and/or you asking them to seek independent legal advice; and/or (4) After taking the said loans, and in or around December 2017 to May 2018, you had wilfully and/or falsely represented to the Complainant that you ha[d] obtained an annulment of your bankruptcy, held a valid practi[s]ing certificate and/or could continue to act for and/or represent the Complainant in the care and custody matter, but you in fact continued not to hold a practising certificate at all material times from 17 December 2016 to 30 May 2018 (both dates inclusive),

and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an hono[u]rable profession within the meaning of Section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161).

During the DT proceedings, the Respondent admitted to most of the elements of the Charges, save for one element in the First Charge, namely, limb 7 of the First Charge, which is that the Respondent had represented to the Complainant that she would and/or was duly authorised to represent the Complainant at the hearings before the Family Justice Courts for the said care and custody matter. While the Respondent accepted that she had made such a representation between 17 December 2016 and 17 December 2017, she denied having done so from 18 December 2017 to 30 May 2018. The Respondent claimed that after she had made the Disclosure, the Complainant was “happy for the Respondent to carry on acting as the Complainant’s advocate and solicitor...