Ryan Mark Lopez

Ryan Mark Lopez is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2024 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in judicial management and performance bonds. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 67% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated expertise across 21 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and judicial management.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	3 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Judicial Management	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized84% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced71% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Performance Bonds	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Erinford Injunction	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Unconscionability	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Dissolution	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Striking out	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Statutory Liens	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Action in rem	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Admiralty and Maritime Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ryan Mark Lopez has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Ryan Mark Lopez has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Shook Lin & Bok LLP	3 cases	100% of cases	Natixis v Seshadri Rajagopalan: Admiralty Actions, In Rem Writs, and Judicial Management under IRDA(May 2024) Envy Asset Management v Lau Lee Sheng: Striking Out Pleadings & Amendment Application(Feb 2024) Shanghai Chong Kee v Church of St Teresa: Unconscionability in Performance Bond Call(Jan 2024)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Ryan Mark Lopez's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 11.5
Complex Cases: 2 (67%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	311.5 parties avg	11.5	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2024	311.5 parties avg	11.5

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Ryan Mark Lopez's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

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

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2024	3 3	Lost: 3 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Natixis v Seshadri Rajagopalan: Admiralty Actions, In Rem Writs, and Judicial Management under IRDA 01 May 2024 The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (Plaintiff)Lost	01 May 2024	The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (Plaintiff): Application DismissedApplication dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Envy Asset Management v Lau Lee Sheng: Striking Out Pleadings & Amendment Application 07 Feb 2024 Toh Ai Ling (Claimant, Defendant in Counterclaim)Lost	07 Feb 2024	Toh Ai Ling (Claimant, Defendant in Counterclaim): Appeal dismissedThe appeal by the first and second defendants against the claimants was dismissed.
3	Shanghai Chong Kee v Church of St Teresa: Unconscionability in Performance Bond Call 10 Jan 2024 Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd (Claimant)Lost	10 Jan 2024	Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd (Claimant): Application dismissedClaimant's application for a declaration that the defendant had acted unconscionably in making a call on the performance bond was dismissed. The court ordered costs for the defendant in the amount of $22,000 (excluding disbursements). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.