Singapore lawyer disbarred, condemned for mismanaging migrant worker’s settlement funds

SINGAPORE: The Singapore Supreme Court’s Court of Three Judges, which adjudicates professional misconduct by Singapore-qualified lawyers and doctors, has disbarred a solicitor for brazen ethical breaches. The case revealed a years-long scheme of forged documents and overcharging of desperate migrant workers.

Accusations — impropriety and false representation

According to a recent HRD Asia report, the solicitor, whose firm runs two branches in Singapore, allegedly committed several acts of professional misconduct. Central to his defence was the assertion that the complaint against him had been lodged not by a client but by an impersonator. He also contended that allowing the client’s case to lapse was actually in the client’s best interest, given its lack of merit. However, his arguments could not shake the evidence against him presented by the Law Society of Singapore.

Misuse of settlement funds and conflicts of interest

The Law Society presented concerning evidence of the solicitor’s improper handling of settlement funds. A Bangladeshi worker, injured at work, was denied rightful compensation after the solicitor secretly kept $6,000 from a settlement. The money received from one defendant was transferred into the firm’s account to cover legal fees and expenses, all without the worker’s consent or knowledge.

The court condemned this conduct, highlighting that the solicitor’s failure to disclose these financial transactions was a blatant breach of his responsibility to the client. It also stressed the importance of transparent communication concerning financial settlements in workplace injury cases.

Besides mismanaging settlement funds, the solicitor was found to have created conflicts of interest by drafting questionable legal documents. These included a Warrant to Act and Power of Attorney, which gave the solicitor the authority to deduct legal fees and expenses before paying the client. The court determined that the solicitor’s failure to fully explain the documents to the worker was a grave violation of his obligation to advise and protect the client’s best interests.

Final judgment

After a comprehensive review of the evidence, the court determined that the solicitor was guilty of dishonesty and serious misconduct, resulting in his removal from the roll of solicitors. Aggravating factors included the solicitor’s prior disciplinary record, his exploitation of clients with limited English proficiency, and his use of forged documents.

The court emphasised that misconduct involving dishonesty typically results in severe penalties, including disbarment.