SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
20 August 2024
Case summary
Attorney-General v Phua Jill [2024] SGHC 214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges (delivered by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon):
Outcome: The Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore and imposed a minimum reinstatement interval of two years and six months.
1 This was an application by the Attorney-General (the “AG”) for Ms Jill Phua (the “Respondent”) to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore (the “Roll”) pursuant to ss 16(4) and 98 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”).
Background to the application
2 The Respondent completed her undergraduate studies at the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law (“SMU Law”) in December 2021. She completed her practice training and “Part B” of the bar admission course with the Singapore Institute of Legal Education.
3 On 18 January 2023 the Respondent applied to be admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court (“A&S”) (the “Admission Application”). In her supporting affidavit dated 20 June 2023 she declared, among other things, that she had no knowledge of any fact that affects her suitability to practice as an A&S in Singapore or as a legal practitioner (by whatever name called) elsewhere (the “Declaration”).
4 As the papers appeared to be in order, the AG issued a “Letter of No Objections” and the Respondent was admitted as an A&S and placed on the Roll.
5 On 31 August 2023, the AG contacted SMU Law to follow up on a lead that certain students may have omitted declaring in their admissions affidavit. The AG’s investigation revealed that the Respondent had been issued an official reprimand by SMU Law on 12 May 2020 for “an offence of plagiarism, which is a serious violation of the Code of Academic Integrity” in relation to a particular graded assignment (the “Academic Offence”).
6 Having uncovered the Academic Offence, the AG brought this application on 14 March 2024.
7 In response to the application, the Respondent made no attempt to exonerate, excuse or exculpate her actions. Her only explanation for what she had done was to admit that she had been overwhelmed by the fear of having her past conduct exposed and likely, ventilated. The Respondent also withdrew her application for a practising certificate and thereafter went on no pay leave.
Decision of the Court
8 The court held that it was clear that the Declaration was a substantially false statement, and that the non-disclosure of the Academic Offence amounted to a suppression of a material fact within the meaning of s 16(4) of the LPA. The Academic Offence, being an offence of plagiarism, was a material fact which affected the suitability of the Respondent to be admitted as an A&S. This was accepted by the Respondent, who also conceded that she had subjectively contemplated the Academic Offence at the time she made the Declaration: at [11].
9 As s 16(4) of the LPA prescribes that the making of a substantially false statement and/or the suppression of a material fact in an application for admission necessitates that the errant A&S be struck off the Roll, the Court struck off the Respondent accordingly: at [12].
10 The court found that that the Respondent’s initial misconduct was unlikely to have been fatal to her Admission Application: at [13].
11 The fact that the Respondent consciously chose not to rely on her personal circumstances as mitigating factors was commendable, as personal hardship and pressure are scant justification for ethical misconduct given the inherently demanding and dynamic nature of the practice of law. Even under stress, lawyers are expected to make honest choices and decisions: at [14].
12 Although, the Respondent had displayed some ethical insight into her wrongdoing by the time of the hearing of this application, the character defect inherent in the Respondent’s non-disclosure of the Academic Offence should not be understated. It was a serious breach of the duty of candour owed to the Court in the context of the admissions process. Noting that the evidence of the wrongdoing (both the Academic Offence and the subsequent non-disclosure) was overwhelming, and that the Respondent’s ethical insight only came to the fore after the commencement of this application, the court considered that significant character issues remained to be resolved by the Respondent before a fresh application should be brought: at [13] and [15].
13 The court held that a minimum reinstatement interval of two years and six months, being a six-month reduction from the period of three years initially sought by the AG, was appropriate on account of the voluntary steps taken by the Respondent after the commencement of this application. This included informing her supervising solicitor, withdrawing her application for a practising certificate on the very next day, and thereafter proceeding on no-pay leave from 1 April 2024. The Respondent’s decision to voluntarily dissociate herself from the rights and privileges of the office of an A&S showed that she prioritised her duty to the court and to the profession over her own financial predicament, which was a reflection of the progress that she had already made towards her rehabilitation: at [16] to [18].
14 The court also imposed the usual conditions, these being that the minimum reinstatement interval is subject to satisfactory evidence of rehabilitative efforts, evidence of satisfactory appreciation of the Respondent’s ethical duties and compliance with any reasonable requirements that may be in place either under statute or as may be imposed by the court or by the stakeholders at the time she makes a fresh application: at [18].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.