Tan Jeh Yaw
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The respondent, a sole proprietor, acted as supervising solicitor for two practice trainees from January to July 2019 while holding a practising certificate for only just over three years in the preceding seven years, breaching r 18(1)(b) of the Admission Rules. He pleaded guilty to two charges under s 83(2)(j) of the LPA. The Court of 3 Judges found due cause shown. No dishonesty was found. Distinguishing Clarence Lun (18 months), the court found lower culpability and genuine remorse (including a voluntary suspension exceeding 31 months), but declined to give full credit for the voluntary suspension. A 12-month suspension was imposed, commencing 11 November 2025, with costs of $5,000 payable to the Law Society.
Duties found breached:
Aggravating factors:
- Two prior antecedents (a 2021 warning and a 2022 reprimand), though dissimilar and minor
- Cavalier attitude towards compliance with the Admission Rules
- Practising certificate held for just over three years, far short of the five-year minimum
- Signed off on three letters to SILE confirming he met r 18(1) requirements without properly checking
- Greater harm than in Clarence Lun as both trainees completed full 6-month training periods
Mitigating factors:
- Genuine remorse demonstrated from the outset
- Early plea of guilt and intention to plead guilty at earliest opportunity
- Voluntary self-imposed suspension of more than 31 months with substantive impact on livelihood
- Culpability lower than in Clarence Lun (no blatant/wilful disregard, no shifting of blame)
- Harm to Mr L attenuated by Minister's exemption; Mr K's delay unrelated to the breach
- No dishonesty involved