Chia Chwee Imm Helen Mrs Helen Thomas

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The Respondent, an undischarged bankrupt without a valid practising certificate from 17 December 2016 to 30 May 2018, continued to act as a de facto solicitor for the Complainant in a custody dispute and wilfully misrepresented that she was duly authorised to practise and could represent the Complainant in court. She also procured prohibited loans of $40,000 from the Complainant and $20,000 from the Complainant's mother without advising them to seek independent legal advice. The Court of Three Judges found both charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, made an express finding of dishonesty indicating a character defect, and held that r 23 LPPCR applied even to a lawyer without a PC. Striking off was the presumptive and appropriate sanction; the Respondent was struck off and ordered to pay costs of $28,000 all-in.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage
• No conflict between current clients
• Hold a current practising certificate

Aggravating factors:

• Acted as solicitor without a valid PC for a prolonged period (about 9 months) despite knowing she was not authorised
• Clear element of dishonesty - misled complainant into thinking she was authorised to represent her in court
• Not a one-off deception; continued misrepresentation including a 'charade' of timed messages on the hearing day
• Violated trust and confidence in the de facto solicitor-client relationship
• Borrowed $60,000 in total from the vulnerable client and her mother
• Element of undue influence as loans procured when complainant felt 'trapped' during pending custody proceedings
• Disclosure of bankruptcy made in opportunistic circumstances

Mitigating factors:

• Claimed remorse and apologised to the court
• Admitted to charges and was forthright with the Inquiry Committee
• History of pro bono work and contribution to family law practice (claimed mental health issues given little weight)