Latest news with #HelenChiaChweeImm
Singapore Law Watch
3 days ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy Source: Straits Times Article Date: 31 May 2025 Author: Shaffiq Alkhatib Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a 'lack of clarity' on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then 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 the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the 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. 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. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the 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. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, 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. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. 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. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21. Shaffiq Alkhatib is The Straits Times' court correspondent, covering mainly criminal cases heard at the State Courts. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print 150
New Paper
6 days ago
- New Paper
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges - one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a "lack of clarity" on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then 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 the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the 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. 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. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend - the second victim - asked her to act as the 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. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, 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. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. 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. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21.
Straits Times
6 days ago
- Straits Times
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy SINGAPORE – A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a 'lack of clarity' on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then 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 the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the 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. 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. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the 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. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, 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. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. 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. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21. Shaffiq Alkhatib is The Straits Times' court correspondent, covering mainly criminal cases heard at the State Courts. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Singapore Law Watch
27-05-2025
- Singapore Law Watch
Woman admits to providing legal services when she could not practise law due to bankruptcy
Woman admits to providing legal services when she could not practise law due to bankruptcy Source: Straits Times Article Date: 27 May 2025 Author: Samuel Devaraj Helen Chia Chwee Imm charged two victims for her legal services despite losing her ability to practise law. 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.' Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
New Paper
27-05-2025
- New Paper
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."
