Mathavan Devadas

Mathavan Devadas is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misuse of drugs act and admission to the bar. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated expertise across 14 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and misuse of drugs act.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	3 cases	17% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	2 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Admission to the Bar	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal conspiracy	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Academic Misconduct	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mathavan Devadas has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mathavan Devadas has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Tito Isaac & Co LLP	1 cases	33% of cases	Re Lee Jun Ming Chester: Admission as Advocate and Solicitor Despite Past Offense(Oct 2023)
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	33% of cases	PP v Sharom bin Ahmad: Trafficking Diamorphine & Criminal Conspiracy(Apr 2000)
Deputy Public Prosecutor	1 cases	33% of cases	Sharom bin Ahmad v PP: Drug Trafficking, Possession, and Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act(Jul 2000)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Mathavan Devadas's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	33.0 parties avg	3.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2023	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Mathavan Devadas's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	3(100%)	100%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Re Lee Jun Ming Chester: Admission as Advocate and Solicitor Despite Past Offense 08 Oct 2023 Chester Lee Jun Ming (Applicant)Won	08 Oct 2023	Chester Lee Jun Ming (Applicant): Application AllowedThe court was satisfied that Mr. Lee had reformed his character since his offense and was a fit and proper person for admission to the bar.
2	Sharom bin Ahmad v PP: Drug Trafficking, Possession, and Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act 16 Jul 2000 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	16 Jul 2000	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Judgment UpheldThe convictions and sentences of both appellants were upheld.
3	PP v Sharom bin Ahmad: Trafficking Diamorphine & Criminal Conspiracy 13 Apr 2000 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	13 Apr 2000	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Guilty verdictThe Public Prosecutor won the case against both accused.