The Law Society of Singapore

The Law Society of Singapore is a statutory board in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 58 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 99 counsels. Through 33 law firms. Their track record shows a 72.4% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 9 complex cases, representing 15.5% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

The Law Society of Singapore has been represented by 33 law firms and 99 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Withers KhattarWong LLP	1 case	J Jayaletchmi Shashi Nathan Jeremy Pereira
Braddell Brothers LLP	1 case	Thng Yu Ting Nicole Lee Man Ruo Angelia Tang Kai Qing
Bih Li & Lee LLP	3 cases	Petrina Tan Heng Kiat Darrell Low Kim Boon Ng Rui Wen Chua Siew Ling Aileen
Allen & Gledhill LLP	2 cases	Dhillon Dinesh Singh Loong Tse Chuan Alisa Toh Qian Wen Lim Jie Hao Sampson Chia Su Min Rebecca Ong Boon Hwee William Seth Yeo Ao-Wen Rajan Sanjiv Kumar Leong Yi-Ming Afzal Ali Chua Xinying Linda Shi Peifeng Peh Aik Hin Dinesh Dhillon Singh Ramesh s/o Selvaraj Mehaerun Simaa d/o Ravichanran Felicia Tan May Lian Wang Jingyi
Providence Law Asia LLC	1 case	Vergis S Abraham SC Loo Yinglin Bestlyn Abraham Vergis SC Axl Rizqy
Lee & Lee	1 case	Saw Seang Kuan Tan Tee Jim Kang Su-Lin Amanda Lim Sharon Yeow
Gurbani & Co.	1 case	Prem Gurbani Mabel Mak
Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice)	1 case	Colin Liew
WongPartnership LLP	1 case	Felicia Soong Wanyi Lin Weiqi Wendy Jill Ann Koh Ying Nicole Seah Teo Guo Zheng, Titus Rajan Menon Smitha
Yeo Wong & Thian	1 case	Wong Siew Hong Hemalatha d/o Silwaraju
Drew & Napier	1 case	Abraham Vergis Daniel Chia Jimmy Yim
Advocatus Law LLP	1 case	Harjean Kaur Christopher Anand Daniel
Selvam LLC	1 case	Sarbjit Singh Chopra Faustina Joyce Fernando Roshan Singh Chopra Sean Francois La’Brooy
Drew & Napier LLC	1 case	Siraj Omar Audie Wong Cheng Siew Sam Yi Ting Adam Muneer Yusoff Maniam Charmaine Yap Yun Ning Toh Ming Min Chia Jun Jie
Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	1 case	Chu Hua Yi Edric Pan Xingzheng Nerissa Tan Yin Shi
Rajah & Tann	1 case	Andrew Ong Kendall Tan
R. Ramason & Almenoar	1 case	Hassan Esa Almenoar Liane Yong
Kenneth Tan Kong & Tan	1 case	Kenneth Tan
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	1 case	Harish Kumar s/o Champaklal Yeap Poh Leong Andre Timothy Ng Xin Zhan Doreen Chia Ming Yee Chandra Mohan Rethnam
Straits Law Practice LLC	1 case	N Sreenivasan
Tan Rajah & Cheah	1 case	M K Eusuff Ali Joseph Tham Chee Ming
Sharpe & Jagger LLC	1 case	Cheong Mun Wai Stephen
Paul Ong Chambers LLC	1 case	Ong Min-Tse Paul
Colin Ng & Partners LLP	1 case	Sean Francois La’Brooy Tan Wei Ser Venetia
Eversheds Harry Elias LLP	1 case	Farrah Joelle Isaac S Suressh
Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang	1 case	Peter Cuthbert Low Christine Sekhon
KhattarWong LLP	1 case	Pateloo Eruthiyanathan Ashokan
Tan & Lim	1 case	Simon Yuen
John Tan & Chan	1 case	Daniel John
Laurence Goh Eng Yau and Co	1 case	Laurence Goh Laurence Goh Eng Yau
Harry Elias Partnership	1 case	Lawrence Quahe Carolyn Tong
Khattar Wong & Partners	2 cases	Yang Lih Shyng Candice Kwok Yang Lih Shying Goh Yun Dee
Kenneth Tan Partnership	1 case	Kenneth Tan Wee Kheng

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of The Law Society of Singapore's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.6
Complex Cases: 9 (15.5%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	23.0 parties avg	3.0	3.4%
Neutral	92.9 parties avg	2.9	15.5%
Partial	22.0 parties avg	2.0	3.4%
Remanded	12.0 parties avg	2.0	1.7%
Won	422.5 parties avg	2.5	72.4%
	23.5 parties avg	3.5	3.4%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2025	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2024	53.0 parties avg	3.0
2023	32.3 parties avg	2.3
2022	42.3 parties avg	2.3
2021	62.2 parties avg	2.2
2020	42.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	42.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2016	33.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2013	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2006	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2004	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2003	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2002	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2001	112.5 parties avg	2.5
2000	32.7 parties avg	2.7

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of The Law Society of Singapore's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(3.4%)	3.4%
Neutral	9(15.5%)	15.5%
Partial	2(3.4%)	3.4%
Remanded	1(1.7%)	1.7%
Won	42(72.4%)	72.4%
	2(3.4%)	3.4%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	398,093.71	9,478.4242 cases	42

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2025	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	2 14	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 4 cases (200.0%)
2023	2 12	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2022	3 121	Neutral: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2021	2 15	Remanded: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 5 cases (250.0%)
2020	1 4	Won: 4 cases (400.0%)
2019	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)
2018	1 4	Won: 4 cases (400.0%)
2017	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)
2016	1 3	Won: 3 cases (300.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2002	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2001	4 1361	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Neutral: 3 cases (75.0%) Won: 6 cases (150.0%) : 1 cases (25.0%)
2000	2 12	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 58 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2025-sgca-2 12 Jan 2025	12 Jan 2025	Respondent	NeutralThe court ordered the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of another Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the matter.
2	2024-sghc-141 30 May 2024	30 May 2024	Applicant	WonApplications to sanction the respondent were allowed. Costs fixed at $10,000 each for OA 5 and OA 10, with reasonable disbursements to be taxed if not agreed. The applicant in OA 10 is also granted the other costs which it asks for: (a) the costs of the proceedings before the DT in the sum of $3,000;(b) the disbursements for the proceedings before the DT in the sum of $2,744.14; and(c) the disbursements for the record of proceedings of the DT in the sum of $391.40. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	2024-sghc-90 27 Mar 2024	27 Mar 2024	Applicant	WonApplication allowed; costs of $25,000 awarded to the Applicant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	2024-sghc-55 27 Feb 2024	27 Feb 2024	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and Ms. Kasturibai was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements to the Law Society. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore)
5	2024-sghc-28 30 Jan 2024	30 Jan 2024	Respondent	NeutralThe Council accepted the Determination on the issue of liability.
6	2024-sghc-19 24 Jan 2024	24 Jan 2024	Applicant	WonApplications OA 1 and OA 6 granted; costs awarded in the aggregate sum of $15,716.24 for OA 1 and $20,500 for OA 6 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	2023-sghc-246 04 Sep 2023	04 Sep 2023	Respondent	NeutralThe Law Society did not seek costs for the Reinstatement Application.
8	2023-sgca-7 21 Feb 2023	21 Feb 2023	Respondent	WonAppeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent, fixed at $30,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	2023-sghc-7 09 Jan 2023	09 Jan 2023	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	2022-sghc-269 27 Oct 2022	27 Oct 2022	Applicant	PartialApplication allowed in part; suspension of 18 months imposed and costs of $10,000 awarded to the applicant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	2022-sghc-224 15 Sep 2022	15 Sep 2022	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application for sanction was granted, with the Respondent ordered to pay costs of $6,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to the Law Society. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
12	2022-sghc-180 27 Jul 2022	27 Jul 2022	Defendant	NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was named as a defendant in a watching brief.
13	2022-sghc-81 11 Apr 2022	11 Apr 2022	Applicant	PartialMr. Nalpon is suspended from practice for a period of 15 months in respect of the First and Second Charges.
14	2021-sghc-258 15 Nov 2021	15 Nov 2021	Respondent	WonApplication dismissed with costs fixed in the aggregate sum of $3,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
15	2021-sghc-212 14 Sep 2021	14 Sep 2021	Applicant	WonApplication for substituted service allowed. Costs of the application to be in the cause. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	2021-sghc-170 04 Jul 2021	04 Jul 2021	Applicant	WonApplication allowed; costs of SGD 20,000 ordered in favour of the Law Society of Singapore.
17	2021-sghc-167 29 Jun 2021	29 Jun 2021	Respondent	WonApplication for reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors was dismissed. No order as to costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
18	2021-sghc-140 13 Jun 2021	13 Jun 2021	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application for leave to investigate a complaint of misconduct against the Respondent was allowed.
19	2021-sghc-27 04 Feb 2021	04 Feb 2021	Applicant	RemandedThe court found that there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
20	2020-sghc-166 06 Aug 2020	06 Aug 2020	Applicant	WonMr. Tan was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings before this court and the Tribunal, which we fixed in the aggregate amount of $25,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
21	2020-sghc-102 17 May 2020	17 May 2020	Applicant	WonA three-month suspension was imposed on the respondent starting from the date of the judgment. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
22	2020-sghc-66 31 Mar 2020	31 Mar 2020	Applicant	WonThe respondent was ordered to be struck off the roll and to bear the costs of the proceedings before both this court as well as before the Disciplinary Tribunal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
23	2020-sghc-38 20 Feb 2020	20 Feb 2020	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application was allowed, and the respondent was suspended for two years.
24	2019-sghc-290 19 Dec 2019	19 Dec 2019	Applicant	WonThe court imposed a fine of $50,000 on the Respondent and ordered the Respondent to pay the Law Society’s costs of $10,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
25	2019-sghc-187 13 Aug 2019	13 Aug 2019	Applicant	WonThe court ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors and awarded costs of the proceedings to the Law Society. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
26	2018-sghc-265 27 Nov 2018	27 Nov 2018	Applicant	WonApplication granted; the respondent was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors with costs fixed at $7,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
27	2018-sghc-196 06 Sep 2018	06 Sep 2018	Applicant	WonRespondent suspended for five years and ordered to pay costs of $5,000 plus disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
28	2018-sghc-47 26 Feb 2018	26 Feb 2018	Applicant	WonCosts of the proceedings fixed at $6,000 awarded to the Law Society. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
29	2018-sghc-21 29 Jan 2018	29 Jan 2018	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application for sanctions was granted. The Respondent was suspended for two years and fined S$100,000.
30	2017-sghc-190 25 Jul 2017	25 Jul 2017	Applicant	WonThe applicant is to have its costs fixed in the sum of $8,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be taxed if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
31	2017-sghc-80 10 Apr 2017	10 Apr 2017	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed; due cause for disciplinary action was shown against both Sum and Kay. Sum was suspended for one year, and Kay was suspended for 30 months. Costs of the proceedings awarded to the Law Society (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
32	2016-sghc-250 06 Nov 2016	06 Nov 2016	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application for disciplinary action against the respondent was successful. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
33	2016-sghc-242 26 Oct 2016	26 Oct 2016	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application for disciplinary action was granted, prohibiting the Respondent from applying for a practicing certificate for two years. Costs of the proceedings were awarded to the Law Society (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
34	2016-sghc-165 18 Aug 2016	18 Aug 2016	Applicant	WonThe Law Society successfully proved that due cause for disciplinary action against the Respondent has been shown.
35	2015-sghc-95 12 Apr 2015	12 Apr 2015	Applicant	WonRespondents were found to have engaged in misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and were ordered to be struck off the roll. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
36	2013-sghc-75 07 Apr 2013	07 Apr 2013	Respondent	Unknown
37	2012-sghc-86 19 Apr 2012	19 Apr 2012	Applicant	WonRespondent ordered to pay a penalty of $15,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore) and bear the costs of the Law Society.
38	2010-sghc-336 11 Nov 2010	11 Nov 2010	Respondent	NeutralThe Law Society did not object to the application, provided certain conditions were imposed on the applicant's practice.
39	2006-sghc-219 26 Nov 2006	26 Nov 2006	Respondent	WonCourt affirmed the determination of the Council in relation to both complaints. Mr. Wee shall pay the Law Society’s costs in connection with this application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
40	2005-sgca-3 16 Jan 2005	16 Jan 2005	Respondent	WonCosts awarded to the Law Society of Singapore, to be taxed and security deposit to be paid equally to the respondents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. Calculated amount is Law Society of Singapore's share of the security deposit.
41	2004-sghc-187 26 Aug 2004	26 Aug 2004	Respondent	WonCosts awarded to The Law Society of Singapore (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
42	2003-sgca-16 14 Apr 2003	14 Apr 2003	Respondent	NeutralAppeal dismissed with costs to all three respondents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
43	2003-sghc-32 20 Feb 2003	20 Feb 2003	Respondent	WonMr Wee ordered to pay costs of the review which I fixed at $300 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
44	2002-sgca-24 06 May 2002	06 May 2002	Respondent	WonAppeal upheld with costs to the respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
45	2001-sghc-367 06 Dec 2001	06 Dec 2001	Defendant	NeutralNot specified in the provided text.
46	2001-sghc-232 20 Aug 2001	20 Aug 2001	Respondent	NeutralOutcome for The Law Society of Singapore not specified in the provided text.
47	2001-sgca-54 20 Aug 2001	20 Aug 2001	Respondent	NeutralThe Law Society took a neutral stand in this appeal.
48	2001-sghc-130 06 Jun 2001	06 Jun 2001	-	Unknown
49	2001-sghc-129 06 Jun 2001	06 Jun 2001	Respondent	WonApplication dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
50	2001-sghc-44 08 Mar 2001	08 Mar 2001	Defendant, Respondent	WonJudgment for the Defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
51	2001-sgca-11 12 Feb 2001	12 Feb 2001	Respondent	LostAppeal dismissed with costs here and below and the usual consequential orders (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
52	2001-sghc-24 04 Feb 2001	04 Feb 2001	Applicant	WonOrder accordingly. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the currency of the jurisdiction.
53	2001-sghc-23 02 Feb 2001	02 Feb 2001	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and the respondent was suspended from practice for three years.
54	2001-sghc-7 09 Jan 2001	09 Jan 2001	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application to show cause was successful.
55	2001-sghc-1 01 Jan 2001	01 Jan 2001	Applicant	WonThe Law Society of Singapore's application was successful, resulting in the respondent's suspension. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
56	2000-sghc-180 31 Aug 2000	31 Aug 2000	Applicant	WonThe Law Society's application was successful, and the respondent was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
57	2000-sghc-169 13 Aug 2000	13 Aug 2000	Applicant	LostThe Law Society's application for an order directing Vivien Quahe Mei Lin and Kwa Kim Li to show cause for disciplinary action was dismissed.
58	2000-sghc-159 03 Aug 2000	03 Aug 2000	Defendant	WonCosts fixed at $2,500.00 to be paid by the plaintiff. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.