Court condemns dishonest handling of migrant worker compensation and settlement funds
The Court of Three Supreme Court Judges of Singapore recently dealt with a case involving a solicitor accused of multiple instances of professional misconduct. The solicitor argued that one of his clients had never actually filed a complaint against him, suggesting an impersonator was responsible.
He also claimed that allowing a client's lawsuit to lapse without taking action served the client's best interests due to the case allegedly lacking merit.
The Law Society of Singapore presented evidence showing the solicitor had kept settlement funds from clients, failed to properly supervise non-lawyer staff, and created conflicts of interest through questionable legal documents. They argued his conduct demonstrated a pattern of placing his own interests above those of vulnerable clients.
The solicitor ran a law firm with two branch offices - one at Roberts Lane and another at People's Park Centre. His non-lawyer staff at the Roberts Lane branch included a "Senior Legal Executive" with a law degree from India and a "Client's Relationship Manager." Both spoke Bengali while the solicitor did not.
The firm's letterhead revealed a telling separation between offices. The Roberts Lane branch handled personal injury claims and immigration matters, with the "Client's Relationship Manager" listed as the contact person rather than the solicitor. This arrangement effectively allowed non-lawyers to operate with minimal oversight.
During one disciplinary hearing, a client made a striking statement that highlighted the supervision problem: "I am filing a complaint against the company, Joseph Chen Associates, but I actually do not know who this lawyer is. I do not recognise him. The person that I recognise is Ranjit Chandra Saha. He told me that he is a lawyer. Yes."
In 2016, a Bangladeshi worker suffered workplace injuries and engaged the solicitor's firm for compensation. Initially pursuing a Work Injury Compensation Act claim assessed at $2,444.65, the worker withdrew it after being advised he could receive more through a personal injury lawsuit.
Without the worker's knowledge, the solicitor later settled the lawsuit for $11,000. After receiving $6,000 from one defendant company, the solicitor transferred it to his office account to cover legal fees and other expenses without informing the worker. This concealment continued for nearly two years until the worker called asking for an update.
The Court found: "[The solicitor] had dishonestly concealed his receipt of moneys under the Settlement from [the worker] and applied them to his costs and disbursements and to [the law firm's] loans and expenses without the knowledge or consent of [the worker]." This case illustrates the importance of transparent communication with affected workers about settlement discussions and financial arrangements, especially in workplace injury cases.
Before filing the personal injury lawsuit, the solicitor had the worker sign a Warrant to Act and a Power of Attorney. These documents gave the solicitor broad powers, including priority rights to deduct legal fees and staff expenses from any settlement before paying the worker.
The solicitor initially admitted under oath that he never explained these documents' implications to the worker. Though he later recanted this admission, the court gave greater weight to his original testimony against his own interests than his subsequent denials.
The court found the documents created serious conflicts of interest: "[The solicitor] had placed himself in a position of conflict between his personal interests and his duty to serve the best interests of [the worker] by virtue of the terms of the WTA and the POA." This finding highlights how professionals must avoid placing their interests above those of vulnerable individuals, a principle equally applicable in employment contexts where power imbalances exist.
In 2015, another Bangladeshi worker engaged the solicitor's firm to take over an existing personal injury lawsuit. Despite accepting the case, the solicitor took no actions to progress it, resulting in automatic dismissal under court rules when no steps were taken for over a year.
Despite the worker visiting the office multiple times seeking updates, he only learned from third parties that his case had been dismissed. The solicitor then told him there was nothing more the firm could do and advised him to return to his previous lawyers.
The solicitor later argued that allowing the case to lapse served the worker's interests because the lawsuit lacked merit.
The court firmly rejected this defence, stating: "To make the unilateral decision to allow a client's cause of action to be automatically discontinued without the client's knowledge or consent, based on the solicitor's own view as to what would serve the client's best interests, is a breach of the lawyer's fundamental duty to be honest in his dealings with his client and to diligently provide advice and information to them
When defending himself in the disciplinary proceedings, the solicitor produced letters allegedly showing he had kept the worker informed about the settlement. However, these documents contained damaging inconsistencies that undermined their credibility.
Though the letters were supposedly signed in 2018 and 2020, they were notarised in September 2022, after disciplinary proceedings had begun. When questioned about these date discrepancies, the solicitor could not provide a coherent explanation, eventually suggesting the notary public should be asked instead.
The Court observed: "The discrepancies in the dates undermined the authenticity of these documents. The fact that the notary public who had attested to [the worker's] execution of these documents dated both documents – supposed to have been signed in 2018 and 2020 respectively – as having been executed on 2 September 2022, indicated that they were falsely backdated and were not executed at the time that [the worker's] matter was still ongoing with [the law firm]."
After finding the solicitor guilty of multiple misconduct charges, the court determined that striking him off the roll was the appropriate sanction. The Court applied established principles that "misconduct involving dishonesty – even so-called 'technical' dishonesty – will 'almost invariably lead to an order for striking off'."
The Court identified several aggravating factors, including the solicitor's previous disciplinary history, his exploitation of vulnerable clients with limited English proficiency, his use of backdated documents, his disrespectful attitude toward court processes, and his complete lack of remorse for his actions.
The Court expressed particular concern about the solicitor's business model: "The way that [the solicitor] ran the Roberts Lane office was in itself, in our view, likely grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. We do not express a concluded view on the point, however, since that was not the charge before us, but we would advise all lawyers to regard [the solicitor's] conduct as an object lesson in the way that lawyers in Singapore should not behave."
