Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 28 October 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGHC 269 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Application No 3 of 2022 |
Published date | 02 November 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 10 October 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Sarbjit Singh Chopra and Roshan Singh Chopra (Selvam LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Mark Jerome Seah Wei Hsien and Lau Wen Jin (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Citation | [2022] SGHC 269 |
C3J/OA 3/2022 (“OA 3”) was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (“the applicant” or “Law Society”) for Mr Lun Yaodong Clarence (“the respondent”) to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). From December 2019 to January 2020, the respondent purported to act as a supervising solicitor for two practice trainees (“trainees”). It was uncontroversial that at the material time, the respondent did not hold a practising certificate for five or more years in the seven years before he commenced the trainees’ supervision, which was a breach of r 18(1)(
The respondent was admitted as an advocate and solicitor on 10 April 2013. He was a lawyer of eight years’ standing at the time of the commencement of disciplinary proceedings in 2021.
The respondent joined Foxwood LLC in July 2019The conduct forming the basis of the charges took place while the respondent was practising with Foxwood LLC (“Foxwood”). Before the respondent joined Foxwood on 8 July 2019, it only had a corporate practice. In early 2019, Mr Goh Kheng Haw (“Mr Goh”) was looking for a lawyer to start a dispute resolution practice in the firm. At all material times, Mr Goh was the sole director identified in Foxwood’s records with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority.
The respondent was introduced to Mr Goh and Mr Joshua Tan Yi Shen (“Mr Tan”), another lawyer in Foxwood, in early 2019 by a mutual contact. The respondent eventually signed a Partnership Agreement (“the PA”) with Foxwood. The PA charged the respondent with “starting, heading and maintaining the Dispute Resolution Division” in Foxwood. Clause 2 of the PA states as follows:
Clause 3.1 obliged the respondent to pay Foxwood a monthly “Administrative Fee” of $1,500 for each fee-earner in the Dispute Resolution Division. Clause 3.2 of the PA obliged the respondent to pay Foxwood a refundable “Deposit” for each employee in the Dispute Resolution Division. In consideration for the payment of the Administrative Fee and Deposit, Clause 3.4 required Foxwood to provide the respondent and the Dispute Resolution Division with services defined in Schedule 2 of the PA:
The respondent joined Foxwood as counsel. While the respondent was to establish and run the Dispute Resolution Division, he was not named as a director. It appears that this was because as at January 2019, the respondent did not fulfil the requirement in s 75C(1)(
On 7 and 11 October 2019, the respondent offered training contracts (“TCs”) to Mr Lim Teng Jie (“Mr Lim”) and Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil (“Ms Sunil”) respectively. Both Mr Lim and Ms Sunil were interviewed by the respondent. Their TCs were also signed by the respondent as “Head of Dispute Resolution” on behalf of Foxwood.
The respondent admits that when he began supervising Mr Lim and Ms Sunil, he was not qualified to act as their supervising solicitor because he did not hold a valid practising certificate for at least five years in the preceding period of seven years. He also accepts that he therefore breached r 18(1)(
Supervising solicitor
Mr Lim commenced his TC with Foxwood on 16 December 2019. On that date, the respondent had only held a practising certificate for
Ms Sunil commenced her TC on 2 January 2020. On that date, the respondent had only held a practising certificate for
The respondent had reminded Ms Sunil on 9 January 2020 to make payment of her salary in lieu of notice. In the 4th
The respondent claimed that he learnt for the first time on 6 January 2020, that he was not qualified to act as a supervising solicitor for trainees. As we elaborate subsequently, what struck us was the respondent’s abject failure even to check whether he satisfied the regulatory requirements to act as a supervising solicitor before he engaged the two trainees.
According to the respondent, while waiting to board a flight from Perth to Singapore on 6 January 2020, the respondent decided to review the relevant legislation concerning trainees. He claimed that he had wanted to know how Foxwood was going to “take care” of trainees in the firm and what “procedures and compliance issues had to be followed.” He then discovered that he “did not appear to qualify to be a supervising solicitor.”
The respondent checked if Mr Goh or Mr Tan were qualified to act as Mr Lim’s supervising solicitor, but they too were not so qualified. The respondent then reached out to Mr Rayney Wong (“Mr Wong”) of Vision Law LLC to enquire if his firm was able to take in Mr Lim as a trainee. Mr Wong agreed to assist the respondent. On 14 January 2020, just over a week after discovering his breach of the Admission Rules, the respondent claimed that he presented several options to Mr Lim:
Mr Lim eventually secured a new TC with Wee Swee Teow LLP and resigned from Foxwood on 30 January 2020. As discussed with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence
...Society of Singapore and Lun Yaodong Clarence [2022] SGHC 269 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Woo Bih Li JAD Originating Application No 3 of 2022 Court of Three Judges Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Sentencing — Lawyer purporting to act as supervising solicitor for......