The Law Society of Singapore v Chen Kok Siang Joseph

The Law Society of Singapore brought Originating Applications Nos 2 and 5 of 2024 before the Court of Three Judges against Mr Chen Kok Siang Joseph, an advocate and solicitor since 25 July 1998 and sole proprietor of Joseph Chen & Co (JCC). JCC had a branch at Roberts Lane, listed as handling personal injury claims, whose contact person was a non-lawyer manager; a Bengali-speaking employee who was not admitted to practise in Singapore dealt with clients there.

In OA 2, Mr Jony, an injured Bangladeshi worker, was advised by that employee to withdraw a work injury compensation claim assessed at $2,444.65 and sue in court instead. He signed a warrant to act and a power of attorney giving Mr Chen priority over any proceeds. JCC settled the suit for $11,000.00, received $6,000.00 from one defendant and moved it to its office account, and Mr Jony learned of this only in November 2020. In OA 5, Mr Masud engaged JCC in 2015 to take over his personal injury suit, but JCC took no step and the suit was deemed discontinued on 23 October 2016. Disciplinary tribunals found most charges in both matters made out. Before the court, Mr Chen's main defence in OA 2 was that an impostor had lodged the complaint; in OA 5 he argued that Mr Masud's claim lacked merit and that the tribunal was biased.

1. Whether due cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action was shown on the charges in OA 2
2. Whether due cause was shown on the charges in OA 5, including Mr Chen's arguments on the merits of the lawsuit and alleged bias
3. What sanction was appropriate for Mr Chen's misconduct

On OA 2, the court rejected the impostor defence: the complainant's statutory declaration, complaint and identity documents met the Law Society's burden, and when Mr Chen called Mr Jony himself, he withdrew him without asking whether he had made the complaint. The court agreed that letters Mr Chen produced, bearing a notary's date of 2 September 2022, were fabricated and backdated, and found that he appeared to have knowingly relied on them. It held that keeping Mr Jony in the dark about the settlement money from December 2018 to November 2020, while applying it to fees, was deliberate and dishonest, and found he had kept no proper records, had let unqualified staff run the Roberts Lane office without supervision, and had not explained the warrant and power of attorney. Those documents gave him a financial interest in the claim and put him in conflict with his client.

On OA 5, the court held that the merits of Mr Masud's suit were irrelevant: a solicitor who thinks a claim weak must advise the client, not let it lapse. JCC never filed a notice of change of solicitor or checked the case file for about three years. The bias complaint was a non-starter.

On sanction, dishonesty and preferring one's own interests over a client's each make striking off the presumptive penalty. There were no exceptional circumstances, and the aggravating factors included disciplinary antecedents, a vulnerable migrant worker client, reliance on backdated documents, disrespect for the court and tribunal, lack of remorse and seniority. The court said it would also have struck him off on OA 5 alone.

The court ordered that Mr Chen be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors, upholding the second to eleventh charges in OA 2 and the first alternative, second and third charges in OA 5. It had earlier refused his request on the day of the hearing to adjourn it, and it ordered him to pay the Law Society's costs of both applications.