lss_dt_reports: 53

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg · About: choco-up/sg-law-archive-data

This data as json

_id	_item_id	title	content	pdf-link	pdf-content	timestamp	url	unique_id	_commit
53	3cb2e4404dd3bee7ad0eef1ac47f8a3fbe5134e3	In the Matter of Teo Kim Soon Danny (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Teo Kim Soon Danny (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent. The following amended charges (the Charges) were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge Failing to exercise proper supervision over an unauthorised person within the meaning of section 32(2) of the Act (the Unauthorised Person) by allowing the Unauthorised Person to attend to the Complainant without the Respondent’s presence, to take instructions on a debt collection matter and thereby enabled the Unauthorised Person to cause the Complainant to execute documents to engage a debt collector, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR) and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act). Second Charge Failing to take reasonable steps to implement adequate systems, policies and controls in the Respondent’s firm for ensuring that Respondent’s firm complied with the applicable written law relating to client’s money, thereby breaching Rule 35(4) of the PCR and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act. Third Charge Omitting to adequately address or respond to a request by the Complainant for a GST tax invoice, thereby being guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Fourth Charge Failing to exercise proper supervision over the Unauthorised Person, to wit: Allowing/permitting/suffering the Unauthorised Person to sign the name of the Respondent’s firm on a letter of demand issued on the letterhead of the Respondent’s firm and send the said letter of demand to the Complainant’s debtor without the Respondent’s knowledge; Permitting/suffering the Unauthorised Person and/or a company in which one the Unauthorised Person was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, to receive a commission on monetary instalments that were paid by the Complainant’s debtor, thereby breaching Rule 32 of the PCR and being guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act. Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), Council’s Sanctions The Respondent admitted to the Charges. The DT found that the Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not give rise to cause for sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act. The DT recommended that the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$12,000.00, which is, in the DT’s view, sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed. The DT ordered, pursuant to section 93(2) of the Act, that the Respondent pay the Law Society $3,500.00 in costs. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $12,000.00. To access the full report, click here.	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Mar_25_DT_Report_Danny_Teo_Kim_Soon.pdf	DT 5 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF TEO KIM SOON DANNY AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1966 REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Disciplinary Tribunal: Ms Deborah Evaline Barker, S.C. – President Mr Harish Kumar – Advocate Counsel for the Law Society of Singapore Counsel for the Respondent Ms Christine Tee Hui Min Allen & Gledhill LLP Mr Steven Lam Templars Law LLC Dated this 5th day of October 2022 IN THE MATTER OF TEO KIM SOON DANNY AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1966 1. The Law Society of Singapore (the "LSS") originally preferred the charges attached in Schedule 1 hereto against the Respondent by way of its Statement of Case (“SOC”) dated 25 March 2022. There were five primary charges, all of which stem from a failure to properly supervise a clerk, one Jeremy Yan Yu Yee (“Jeremy”), formerly employed by the Respondent’s firm, Advance Law LLP (“Advance Law”) in a debt collection matter involving a debt of $9,759.30, and of not implementing an adequate system of controls in Advance Law. This allowed Jeremy, without the Respondent’s knowledge, to get the Complainant to execute documents engaging a debt collector, Empire Collection Pte Ltd—although it does not appear what exactly, if anything, this debt collector did. 2. At the Respondent’s request, the Complainant paid a deposit of $2,140 but Jeremy got the Complainant to pay this sum to CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd (“CJ Consultancy”), of which Jeremy was the sole director and shareholder, instead of to Advance Law’s client’s account. Despite this, the Respondent issued his personal receipt for this deposit. As the Complainant subsequently signed a Warrant to Act in favour of DG Law LLC, the Respondent believed that his firm had not been engaged. However, subsequently, Jeremy issued a letter of demand on the letterhead of Advance Law and pocketed a 15% commission on 3 instalments of the debt paid by the Complainant’s debtor. 3. The Respondent filed his Defence to this SOC on 29 April 2022 essentially admitting to the facts and the charges. 4. Parties filed their respective List of Documents on 11 May 2022. 5. A Pre-hearing conference ("PHC") was held on 25 May 2022. The Tribunal raised some concerns in relation to the charges and noted that the facts were essentially not in dispute. The parties requested for time for the LSS to consider amending the charges and for discussions between the parties as to the factual position. Directions were given for a further PHC on 10 June 2022 and for a hearing to be fixed on 1 August 2022. 6. A further PHC was held on 10 June 2022 at which the Tribunal made directions for the filing of an Amended SOC, an Amended Defence, an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASOF”), an Agreed Bundle of Documents (“AB”) and Submissions on Sentencing and Mitigation (“Submissions”). 1 7. The LSS duly filed its Amended SOC on 13 June 2022 and the Respondent filed his Amended Defence on 23 June 2022. The ASOF and AB were filed on 7 July 2022. Parties filed their respective Submissions and bundles of authorities on 22 July 2022. 8. In the ASOF and Respondent's Submissions, the Respondent admitted to all 4 amended charges preferred under Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the "LPA") and the 3 amended alternative charges under Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. The amended charges are set out in Schedule 2. 9. In their Submissions, the LSS submitted that the Respondent's conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant a reference to the Court of 3 Judges, relying on the authorities of LSS v Sandhu Viviene Kaur [2022] SCDT 1 ("Viviene Kaur"), LSS v Tan Chwee Allan ("Allan Tan"), LSS v. Tan See Leh Jonathan [2020] 5 SLR 418 ("Jonathan Tan"), LSS v. Yeo Siew Chye Troy ("Troy Yeo") and LSS v Krishna Morthy [2015] SGDT 7 ("Krishna Morthy") and distinguishing the facts of those cases. LSS submitted that given the facts and circumstances, balancing all things and taking into account the appropriate authorities, and that the Respondent was guilty of breaches of Section 83(2)(b) and/or 83(2)(h) of the LPA , this Tribunal should make a determination under Section 93(1)(b)(i) that while there was no cause of sufficient gravity, a substantial penalty of at least $10,000 should be imposed. 10. The LSS highlighted that the Respondent failed to properly supervise Jeremy and that the degree of supervision ought to have been calibrated to a higher standard given that Jeremy was an “unauthorised person” under the LPA who had been working for the Respondent for only a year on an ad-hoc basis since 2019. 11. The LSS highlighted the lack of adequate systems, controls or policies for dealing with clients' monies but noted that there is no evidence that a) this resulted in lapses for any other than the present case; and b) the Respondent was aware of Jeremy’s wrongful actions at the material time. Further, the amount of client monies involved ($2,140) was relatively small. 12. The LSS submitted that unlike the case of Krishna Morthy (which involved the sum of $108,000) the Respondent's conduct had not crossed the threshold to warrant a finding of a cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action 13. The Respondent for his part admitted to the charges but submitted that there was an honest oversight on his part and misplaced trust by him in 2 Jeremy, which led to his admitted breaches as reflected in the amended charges. He highlighted that since the complaint he had implemented a “stricter due diligence system” and hired more office managers to oversee the administrative and accounts staff and ensure that his firm is properly managed. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to impose a monetary penalty and a warning and/or reprimand. 14. At the hearing, the Tribunal called on the LSS to clarify its submission that the charges and the facts were not such as to justify a reference to the Court of 3 Judges and that a penalty of at least $10,000 should be imposed. The LSS was also asked to clarify what it meant by a penalty of at least $10,000. The Respondent was asked to submit on his implied contention that no reference to the Court of 3 Judges was appropriate and also on what penalty the Respondent was contending would be appropriate. 15. The LSS reiterated that this is a case where there is no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action but one where a monetary penalty is appropriate as the factual matrix does not push this matter into the category of more serious complaints. The LSS highlighted that there is no evidence here of dishonesty or deceit or of other "severe facts", such as conflict of interest, fee-sharing arrangements or facilitating the commitment of serious offences such as criminal breach of trust or cheating. 16. The LSS submitted that the 1st and 4th Charges relate to the Respondent's failure to adequately supervise Jeremy. The LSS then went through the authorities and submitted that the Respondent was largely unaware of Jeremy's actions and that the failure to supervise in this case falls in seriousness somewhere between the Vivien Sandhu case and the cases of Jonathan Tan and Troy Yeo. 17. The 2nd Charge involves a failure to implement adequate systems, controls and policies. The Respondent had relied on Jeremy's representations as to the receipt of monies instead of checking and there was no adequate system in place. However, the LSS submitted that this case does not cross the threshold (for sufficient gravity) and the lapse here was an isolated instance. 18. As for the 3rd charge, the Respondent was at fault in failing to adequately address the Complainant's request for a GST invoice to be issued (he was in no position to do since his firm had not received the deposit; even if it had, it would not have been appropriate to issue a GST invoice). In their written submissions, the LSS noted that the Respondent's conduct appeared to be a "one-off oversight" and there was no evidence of improper motive. 19. The Respondent for his part submitted that: a) There is no evidence of dishonesty or deceit on his part; 3 b) He did not try to cheat the Complainant and "did not receive a single cent from the [Complainant]"; c) He was largely unaware of Jeremy's acts; d) His failing was that he should have supervised Jeremy more closely and implemented a better office management system; and e) The cases of Vivien Sandhu and Krishna Morthy could be distinguished on the facts and pointed out the financial benefits enjoyed by the solicitors in those cases. He also emphasized that in the present case, unlike for example the case of Alan Tan, he had from "the word go" been upfront with the IC and informed the DT he was not contesting the charges. 20. After hearing the parties' submissions and clarifying the facts, the Tribunal accepted the submission of both parties that a reference to the Court of 3 Judges was not justified in the present case and that a penalty should be imposed. 21. With respect to the quantum of the penalty to be imposed, the LSS submitted that in the present case there was an aggravating factor because the Respondent has been found guilty in a similar prior case in which he had left his client unattended and allowed an unauthorised person to interview and take instructions from the client. In that case the Court of 3 Judges imposed a suspension 18 months but there was also an issue there that the Respondent had in addition acted in conflict of interest. The LSS submitted that taking the aggravating factor into account a penalty of up to $15,000 would ordinarily have been appropriate. 22. However, in the present case there are also mitigating factors in that the Respondent pleaded guilty at a very early stage and accepted all charges and has also instituted remedial changes in his firm. The LSS thus submitted that a penalty of $12,000 to $13,000 should be imposed. 23. The Respondent agreed that a financial penalty should be imposed but submitted that this should not cross the $10,000 mark. Relying on the case of Vivien Sandhu, he submitted that a figure of $6,000 would be fair. He pointed out in that case, the firm received financial rewards which were never refunded. However, the Respondent here did not receive any financial reward and there was a lack of deceit or dishonesty on his part. He had failed to follow up with the Complainant when the issue arose but had taken a certain course from the inception. He therefore submitted that a fine of between $7,000 to $8,000 with no order as to costs should be imposed. 24. With respect to costs, the LSS submitted that costs of $5,000 to $6,000 and reasonable disbursements of $500 should be ordered. The Respondent 4 maintained his submission that no order as to costs should be made but added that if an order on costs were to be made, it should not exceed $5,000. 25. The Tribunal notes that a failure by a legal practitioner to supervise his staff is a serious matter for the reasons put forward by the LSS namely: a) The necessity to protect the public so that anyone who approaches a lawyer can expect to receive legal advice from people who are duly qualified and authorised; and b) In order to uphold public confidence in the standing and reputation of the legal profession. The penalty to be imposed in this case should reflect these concerns. 26. Taking into consideration all the factors, including the lack of dishonesty or deceit on the part of the Respondent, the quantum of monies involved and the fact that the Respondent derived no benefit from the transaction and has since put in place remedial measures to ensure better management and supervision of staff, and bearing in mind both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Tribunal determines pursuant to Section 93(1)(b)(i) of the LPA that while the Respondent’s conduct does not disclose any cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under Section 83, he should be ordered to pay a penalty that is sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed which we would recommend be a sum of $12,000. 27. Finally, pursuant to Section 93(2) of the LPA, the Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay the LSS’s costs fixed at $3,500 (inclusive of disbursements). Dated this 5th day of October 2022 _______________________ ________________ Deborah Evaline Barker, SC Harish Kumar President Member 5 Schedule 1 First Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 7 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, by allowing Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to attend to the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, without your presence, to take instructions on a debt collection matter and thereby enabled the said Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to cause the Complainant to execute documents, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to engage a debt collector, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Alternative First Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 7 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, by allowing Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to attend to the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, without your presence, to take instructions on a debt collection matter and thereby enabled the said Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to cause the Complainant to execute documents, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to engage a debt collector, in breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. i Second Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, between 7 December 2020 and August 2021, failed to take reasonable steps to implement adequate systems, policies and controls in Advance Law LLC for ensuring that Advance Law LLC complied with the applicable written law relating to client’s money, to wit: (1) you failed to verify whether the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, as a deposit to Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or; (2) you allowed or permitted or suffered the sum of S$2,140.00 to be paid into UOB Account No. XXXXXX4799 belonging to CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, instead of an account of Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or (3) you failed to ensure that the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was paid to a client account of Advance Law LLC; and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 35(4) of the Legal Professional (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Professional Act 1966. Second Alternative Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, between 7 December 2020 and August 2021, failed to take reasonable steps to implement adequate systems, policies and controls in Advance Law LLC for ensuring that Advance Law LLC complied with the applicable written law relating to client's money, to wit: (1) you failed to verify whether the sum of S$2, 140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was in fact ii received by Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or (2) You allowed or permitted or suffered the sum of S$2,140.00 to be paid into a UOB Account No. XXXXXX4799 belonging to CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, instead of an account of Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or (3) You failed to ensure that the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was paid to a client account of Advance Law LLC, and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Third Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, between 7 December 2020 and August 2021, refused and/or failed to issue a GST tax invoice to the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, when such GST tax invoice was requested by the Complainant, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Fourth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to wit, you allowed or permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to sign the name of Advance Law LLC on a letter of demand issued on the letterhead of Advance Law LLC and send the said letter of demand to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd without your knowledge, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 and/or the Law Society of iii Singapore's Practice Directions 3.11.1, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Alternative Fourth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to wit, you allowed or permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to sign the name of Advance Law LLC on a letter of demand issued on the letterhead of Advance Law LLC and send the said letter of demand to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd without your knowledge, and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Fifth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, permitted or suffered one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to make use of your name and the name 'Advance Law LLC' in a debt recovery matter, to wit, you permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to write and send a letter of demand threatening legal proceedings on the letterhead of Advance Law LLC, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd, for the profit of Jeremy Tan Yu Yee and/or CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, who received a 15% commission on 3 monetary instalments that were paid by Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd to Drink Express Trading, in contravention of Section 77 (1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Section 83(2)j) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. iv Alternative Fifth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, permitted or suffered one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to make use of your name and the name 'Advance Law LLC' in a debt recovery matter, to wit, you permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to write and send a letter of demand threatening legal proceedings on the letterhead of Advance Law LLC, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd, for the profit of Jeremy Tan Yu Yee and/or CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, who received a 15% commission on 3 monetary instalments that were paid by Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd to Drink Express Trading, in contravention of Section 77(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Further Alternative Fifth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, permitted or suffered one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to make use of your name and the name 'Advance Law LLC' in a debt recovery matter, to wit, you permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to write and send a letter of demand threatening legal proceedings on the letterhead of Advance Law LLC, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd, for the profit of Jeremy Tan Yu Yee and/or CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, who received a 15% commission on 3 monetary instalments that were paid by Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd to Drink Express Trading, in contravention of Section 77(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct v unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. vi Schedule 2 First Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 7 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, by allowing Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to attend to the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, without your presence, to take instructions on a debt collection matter and thereby enabled the said Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to cause the Complainant to execute documents, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to engage a debt collector, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Alternative First Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 7 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, by allowing Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to attend to the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, without your presence, to take instructions on a debt collection matter and thereby enabled the said Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to cause the Complainant to execute documents, on behalf of Drink Express Trading, to engage a debt collector, in breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. i Second Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, between 7 December 2020 and August 2021, failed to take reasonable steps to implement adequate systems, policies and controls in Advance Law LLC for ensuring that Advance Law LLC complied with the applicable written law relating to client’s money, to wit: (1) you failed to verify whether the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was in fact received by Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or (2) you allowed or permitted or suffered the sum of S$2,140.00 to be paid into a UOB Account No. XXXXXX4799 belonging to CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, instead of an account of Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or (3) you failed to ensure that the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was paid to a client account of Advance Law LLC, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 35(4) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Second Alternative Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, between 7 December 2020 and August 2021, failed to take reasonable steps to implement adequate systems, policies and controls in Advance Law LLC for ensuring that Advance Law LLC complied with the applicable written law relating to client’s money, to wit: (1) you failed to verify whether the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was in fact received by Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or ii (2) you allowed or permitted or suffered the sum of S$2,140.00 to be paid into a UOB Account No. XXXXXX4799 belonging to CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, instead of an account of Advance Law LLC, even though you issued a receipt for the said sum; and/or (3) you failed to ensure that the sum of S$2,140.00 intended to be paid by the Complainant as a deposit to Advance Law LLC was paid to a client account of Advance Law LLC, and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Third Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, between 7 December 2020 and August 2021, omitted to adequately address or respond to a request by the Complainant, Khoo Teng Aik, for a GST tax invoice for the sum of S$2,140.00. PARTICULARS (1) On 7 December 2020, the Complainant requested, through one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC, for a GST tax invoice for the sum of S$2,140.00; (2) On 10 August 2021, the Complainant requested that you, on behalf of Advance Law LLC, provide a GST tax invoice for the sum of S$2,140.00. You informed the Complainant that Advance Law LLC would “have to issue invoice” and you had “already instructed [your] Accounts [Department]” to check on the matter, and that you would speak to Jeremy Tan Yu Yee on the issue; (3) Thereafter, on 10 August 2021, you spoke to Jeremy Tan Yu Yee and were informed that the sum of S$2,140.00 was not paid to or received by Advance Law LLC, that Advance Law LLC had not been appointed by the Complainant to carry out the debt-collection work, and that Jeremy Tan Yu Yee would follow up with the Complainant on his request for a GST tax invoice. (4) In light of your conversation with Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, you ought, but failed, to inform the Complainant that the GST tax invoice for the sum of S$2,140 would not be issued by Advance Law LLC as the sum of S$2,140.00 was not paid to or received by Advance Law LLC and that Advance Law LLC had not been appointed by the Complainant to carry out the debt-collection work; iii and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Fourth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to wit: (1) You allowed or permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to sign the name of Advance Law LLC on a letter of demand issued on the letterhead of Advance Law LLC and send the said letter of demand to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd without your knowledge; (2) you permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee and/or CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, to receive a 15% commission on 3 monetary instalments that were paid by Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd to Drink Express Trading; and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 and/or the Law Society of Singapore’s Practice Directions 3.11.1, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. Alternative Fourth Charge That you, Teo Kim Soon Danny, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, on or around 21 December 2020, failed to exercise proper supervision over one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee, a then-employee of Advance Law LLC who was an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, to wit, (1) you allowed or permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee to sign the name of Advance Law LLC on a letter of demand issued on the letterhead of Advance iv Law LLC and send the said letter of demand to Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd without your knowledge; (2) you permitted or suffered Jeremy Tan Yu Yee and/or CJ Consultancy Pte Ltd, a company in which one Jeremy Tan Yu Yee was the sole director and shareholder at the material time, to receive a 15% commission on 3 monetary instalments that were paid by Sri Kaligambal Enterprises Pte Ltd to Drink Express Trading; and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. v	2025-03-11T04:00:57+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-mar-2025/	In the Matter of Teo Kim Soon Danny (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-mar-2025/	1202

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in lss_dt_reports_version