Woman admits to providing legal services when she could not practise law due to bankruptcy
Despite losing her ability to practise law because of bankruptcy, a woman charged two victims, including a friend who was going through a divorce, for her legal services.
Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty on May 26 to a cheating charge and another charge of pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor under the Legal Profession Act.
Two other similar charges will be taken into consideration during her sentencing on May 30.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia, who was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999, had a bankruptcy order made against her on Dec 15, 2016.
She therefore did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016.
Chia met her first victim for a consultation on Dec 19, 2016, after the woman had e-mailed her. They discussed legal issues concerning the woman's care and custody of her son.
Subsequently, and without Chia's involvement, the woman and her son's father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child's life amicably.
But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with her son's father resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as her lawyer.
Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate.
After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice, including helping her strategise on how to deal with her son's father.
In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name.
It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt.
Then on Jan 10, 2018, Chia told her that her bankruptcy annulment had been sorted out, stopping short of saying that the bankruptcy had not yet been annulled.
DPP Tay said Chia deliberately gave the woman the misimpression that she had set aside her bankruptcy order, and continued communicating with the victim to give legal advice and update her on the status of her case.
In total, Chia collected $13,685.60 from the woman.
Some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend asked her to act as her lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order.
They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend's divorce papers and personal protection order case file.
Her friend then formally engaged Chia, who did not inform her that she could not practise, to represent her in the divorce proceedings.
Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a "friend" rate - a third of what she would usually charge.
After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her.
On Chia's advice, an application for an expedited personal protection order was filed on behalf of her friend.
Chia enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter.
On May 2, 2018, Chia's friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees.
DPP Tay said she would not have paid had she known that Chia was not authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor.
Chia's bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again.
But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her.
It was only in June 2021 that Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and had no practising certificate when she was representing her.
On Oct 26, 2021, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia, and on Aug 15, 2022, she was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors by the Court of Three Judges.
In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her.
DPP Tay asked the court to sentence Chia to between six and 12 months' jail.
She said Chia's offence against the first victim was deliberate and premeditated, and that she had abused her position of trust as the second victim's purported lawyer and friend.
Chia's lawyer, Mr Nicholas Narayanan of Nicholas & Tan Partnership, asked for a fine, saying that at the time of the offences, Chia was suffering from depression due to two incidents involving two other clients, including a woman she was representing in 2015 whose child was killed by the father.
Mr Nicholas said the father had been violent to the mother but not the son, so Chia had advised and persuaded the mother to give the father overnight access to their son.
The father killed the child during his access time, and Chia blamed herself for it.
Mr Nicholas said: "With the benefit of hindsight, our client realised that she was struggling with her mental health (after the incidents), but she did not know better.
"It was also around that time when she was struggling to maintain the firm solely with her team of seven staff. The bankruptcy happened solely because she stopped caring."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
13 hours ago
- CNA
US Supreme Court eases path for 'reverse' discrimination claims in workplace cases
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Thursday (Jun 5) made it easier for people from majority backgrounds, such as white or heterosexual individuals, to pursue workplace discrimination claims, in a unanimous ruling that revived an Ohio woman's lawsuit. The case involves Marlean Ames, who claimed she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. The justices ruled 9-0 to overturn a lower court's decision that had dismissed her complaint, marking a significant shift in how courts may evaluate so-called 'reverse discrimination' suits. RULING REMOVES EXTRA BURDEN ON MAJORITY-GROUP PLAINTIFFS Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow for different legal standards based on whether someone belongs to a majority or minority group. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' – without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group – Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson wrote. The ruling affects judicial districts, including the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, that previously required plaintiffs from majority groups to provide additional evidence of discrimination. These courts often asked such plaintiffs to demonstrate 'background circumstances' suggesting bias against the majority. CASE BACKGROUND: CLAIMS OF BIAS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION Ames filed the lawsuit in 2020 against Ohio's Department of Youth Services, saying that she was passed over for a promotion in favour of a gay woman and later demoted in favour of a gay man. She claimed she was more qualified and had been targeted because of her heterosexuality. "I was straight and pushed aside for them," Ames told Reuters in February. Her case had been rejected by the 6th Circuit, which found she had not met the threshold needed to show possible bias under the previous legal standard. The appeals court also noted that the final employment decisions had been made by straight supervisors. The Supreme Court's ruling returns the case to lower courts for further proceedings. POLITICAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The decision comes amid growing political attention on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the US workplace. On his first day back in office in January, President Donald Trump ordered the dismantling of DEI programs across federal agencies, calling them divisive. He also urged private companies to follow suit. Conservative legal groups such as America First Legal, which has filed numerous lawsuits alleging anti-white or anti-male bias, had backed Ames' case. Her attorney, Edward Gilbert, said they were 'overjoyed' by the court's decision. 'We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination,' said department spokesperson Dominic Binkley. PUSHBACK FROM CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS The ruling has drawn criticism from civil rights groups. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other advocacy organisations argued the decision risks undermining protections for historically marginalised groups. In filings to the court, they said the 'background circumstances' test allowed judges to consider the broader context of systemic discrimination against groups like Black and LGBTQ individuals. They warned that eliminating such standards may shift focus away from ongoing inequality. While the Supreme Court ruling does not eliminate Title VII's protections against discrimination, it does mean that all individuals, regardless of background, will face the same evidentiary requirements when bringing a claim. The case could pave the way for an increase in workplace lawsuits challenging diversity hiring and promotion practices across both public institutions and private employers.
Straits Times
19 hours ago
- Straits Times
Jury to start deliberating in Harvey Weinstein rape retrial
FILE PHOTO: Harvey Weinstein's case continues with his retrial in New York, U.S., May 27, 2025. After his initial conviction was overturned, the retrial began in April 2025, with a new jury selection process. Steven Hirsch/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo NEW YORK - Jurors in Harvey Weinstein's rape and sexual assault retrial will begin deliberating on Thursday in a Manhattan court, weighing the credibility of the former movie mogul's three accusers against the defense's efforts to brand them liars. The Academy Award-winning producer and Miramax studio co-founder is accused of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 and assaulting two other women in 2006 and 2002. Weinstein, who has denied ever having non-consensual sex or assaulting anyone, has pleaded not guilty. The trial began in April. Weinstein, 73, is on trial for a second time after a New York state appeals court threw out his conviction in April 2024. He faces up to 25 years in prison for two counts of criminal sexual acts and up to four years for one count of rape. Weinstein's defense lawyer Arthur Aidala moved for a mistrial on Thursday morning, after New York Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber said he would dismiss a juror who called in sick and seat an alternate. Aidala argued for a break in the trial to allow the original juror to deliberate. "If you have an objection to the way the law is written, contact the New York state legislature," the judge said. Weinstein is already serving a 16-year prison sentence after being found guilty in December 2022 of rape in California. Two days of closing arguments wrapped up on Wednesday, and Farber will instruct the 12 jurors on the law before handing them the case. Prosecutors with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have portrayed Weinstein as a serial predator who promised career advancement in Hollywood to women, only to then coax them into private settings where he attacked them. 'He held the golden ticket, the chance to make it or not. He made each of these women feel small, no match for the power broker of Hollywood,' prosecutor Nicole Blumberg told jurors on Wednesday. Weinstein's defense lawyers have said his encounters with the women were consensual and accused them of lying about being raped after failing to make it big in Hollywood by sleeping with him. "They are lying about what happened. Not about everything, but about a small slice - just enough to turn their regret, their buyers' remorse, into criminality," Aidala told jurors Tuesday. Weinstein was convicted of rape by a Manhattan jury in February 2020, but the New York Court of Appeals threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial, citing errors by the trial judge. Weinstein had been serving a 23-year sentence in a prison in upstate Rome, New York, when the conviction was overturned. That conviction was a milestone for the #MeToo movement, which encouraged women to come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct by powerful men. Weinstein has been held at New York City's Rikers Island jail since his conviction was overturned. He has had several health scares while being held at Rikers, and in September was rushed to a hospital for emergency heart surgery. More than 100 women, including famous actresses, have accused Weinstein of misconduct. He has denied assaulting anyone or having non-consensual sex. Miramax studio produced many hit movies in its heyday, including "Shakespeare in Love" and "Pulp Fiction." Weinstein's own eponymous film studio filed for bankruptcy in March 2018, five months after the original sexual misconduct accusations became widely publicized. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Straits Times
Legal challenges facing South Korea's incoming President Lee Jae-myung
Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate for South Korea's Democratic Party, speaks to his supporters, in front of the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, June 4, 2025. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji SEOUL - South Koreans voted in Lee Jae-myung as their next president in the country's June 3 snap election to heal the wounds of a shock martial law declaration in December, but the liberal leader comes with his own legal baggage in the form of five different criminal trials. Democratic Party leader Lee has denied wrongdoing and while a president has immunity from most crimes, legal experts are unclear whether this applies to cases that started before they took office. Here are some aspects of the trials the president is involved in. ELECTION LAW South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court after overturning an earlier ruling clearing him. The Seoul High Court decided to schedule its reconsideration of the case for June 18, pushing back a ruling that could determine his eligibility to run until after the election. Violation of election law had been in the spotlight because if the appeals court finalises a guilty verdict in line with the Supreme Court's decision, Lee would be barred from contesting elections for at least five years. The Supreme Court ruling sparked criticism from Lee's Democratic Party, which controls parliament, leading to bills being introduced that suggested the court and its chief justice engaged in abuse of jurisdiction and interference in the presidential election. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION This trial combines allegations of corruption such as bribery from four separate cases related to property development projects and licensing, during Lee's 2010-2018 stint as mayor of Seongnam City bordering Seoul's wealthy Gangnam district. A major portion of the trial involves Lee allegedly colluding with a group of private property developers to help them rake in money from a 1.5 trillion won ($1.08 billion) project, while inflicting losses on the city. The trial at Seoul Central District Court began in 2023 with around 200,000 pages of records submitted to the court, according to the Yonhap News Agency. A hearing planned in May was postponed to June 24, after the election. MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, SENDING MONEY TO NORTH KOREA These two trials are ongoing at Suwon District Court, south of Seoul. In one, prosecutors alleged that Lee committed breach of trust by using public funds for personal expenses when he was governor of Gyeonggi province in 2018-2021, including parking an official car at his home and letting his wife use it regardless of the errand, plus purchases of food and payment for personal laundry with provincial funds. In another, prosecutors alleged that Lee was an accomplice in a former Gyeonggi province vice governor's involvement in handing over money to North Korea in 2018, and indicted him for violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, as well as bribery of a third party. ALLEGED SUBORNATION OF PERJURY A case is also before the Seoul High Court, in which prosecutors alleged Lee induced a witness to lie under oath in court concerning another case in 2019 in which he was cleared. A lower court had cleared Lee of the charge, before prosecutors appealed. A hearing set for May 20 was postponed, court records showed. WHAT'S NEXT? The fate of the trials is unclear. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The Democratic Party introduced to committee in May a bill which suspends ongoing trials if the defendant is elected president. However, some legal experts have noted the Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, which would increase political uncertainties. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where the trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
