Lawyer disbarred over using injured worker’s settlement sum to pay his own fees

Lawyer Joseph Chen has been struck off the rolls for professional misconduct relating to two separate cases in which he acted for migrant workers who were seeking compensation for workplace injuries.

In one case, Mr Chen entered into a settlement agreement without the client’s knowledge and consent, and used the $6,000 settlement sum he received to pay his firm’s fees and his employees.

In the other case, Mr Chen’s inaction for nine months caused the client’s lawsuit to be automatically discontinued.

The striking-off was handed down on Nov 25 by the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend or disbar errant lawyers.

The court, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said it will give written reasons at a later date.

Mr Chen, who was called to the Bar in 1998, was the sole proprietor of Joseph Chen & Co.

In 2016, the lawyer was hired by Mr Jony Advaita Sarkar, who was injured on April 6 that year while working for his then employer, GSI Offshore.

The Bangladeshi national was struck by a large metal pipe on the premises of Dyna-Mac Engineering Services and fell backwards. He was given about 70 days’ medical leave and suffered a 2 per cent permanent disability.

Mr Jony returned to Bangladesh in August 2017, after appointing the law firm to act for him and signing a power of attorney that allowed Mr Chen to act on his behalf.

In November 2017, the firm filed a lawsuit against GSI Offshore and Dyna-Mac on Mr Jony’s behalf, claiming damages of at least $172,070.63.

The suit was settled in late 2018. Under the terms of the settlement, Mr Jony was to receive the total sum of $11,000, with $6,000 to be paid by Dyna-Mac and $5,000 to be paid by GSI Offshore.

The cheque for $6,000 issued by Dyna-Mac was eventually used to pay the law firm’s fees and expenses, and to reimburse two employees.

In January 2020, the law firm filed a notice to discontinue the suit against Dyna-Mac. GSI Offshore did not pay the $5,000.

Mr Jony found out about the settlement in November 2020. He lodged a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore against Mr Chen the following month.

In May 2022, Chief Justice Menon appointed a disciplinary tribunal to investigate 11 charges brought by the Law Society against Mr Chen.

The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Tan Tee Jim and Mr Manoj Pillay Sandrasegara, found him guilty of 10 charges over breaches of various legal profession rules.

In its report, the tribunal said Mr Chen’s misconduct was especially egregious in relation to his failure to inform the client and seek his consent regarding the settlement, the discontinuance of the suit, the receipt of the settlement sum, and the use of the money.

“He kept the complainant totally in the dark regarding these matters. This misconduct demonstrates his complete dereliction of the duties to his client and is inexcusable and wholly unmitigated,” said the tribunal.

The other case involved Mr Masud Rana Abdul Jalil Hawlader, who allegedly suffered an injury in August 2012 when he was seated in a lorry.

Mr Masud initially hired another firm to act for him. After he returned to Bangladesh, the firm filed a suit on his behalf in August 2014.

In 2015, Mr Masud authorised his relative, Mr Md Alamin, to appoint Mr Chen’s firm as his new lawyers.

In October 2016, the suit was deemed discontinued under court rules, as no steps had been taken within a year of the last step.

Mr Masud returned to Singapore in July 2018.

After learning that the suit had been discontinued, he lodged a complaint with the Law Society, which brought three charges against Mr Chen. The Law Society argued that Mr Chen had breached legal profession rules by failing to contact Mr Masud between February and October 2016.

A disciplinary tribunal was appointed by the Chief Justice in January 2023 to look into the case.

Mr Chen argued that he did not owe any duty to Mr Masud and did not breach legal profession rules.

He alleged that the retainer was invalid because he had reason to believe that Mr Masud’s claim was “bogus” and that “no accident happened”.

The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi and Mr Wong Siew Hong, rejected this argument.

In its report, the tribunal noted the formation of the solicitor-client relationship was independent of the merits of the client’s claim.

The tribunal found him guilty of misconduct for failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence, failing to provide timely advice to Mr Masud, and failing to supervise his staff.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

2 Chinatown shops found to illegally compare rates for remitting renminbi: Competition watchdog ADV: Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025