Woman who acted as a lawyer when she did not have a practising certificate pleads guilty

SINGAPORE: Despite not having a practising certificate, a former lawyer pretended that she could still represent clients in legal proceedings and give legal advice.

Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, was not authorised to act as a lawyer due to a bankruptcy order, but did so and charged two clients close to S$40,000 (US$31,200) in legal fees. 

The Singaporean has since been struck off as a lawyer following disciplinary proceedings. 

On Monday (May 26), Chia pleaded guilty to one charge under the Legal Profession Act for falsely claiming that she was authorised to act as a lawyer, and to one count of cheating.

Two similar charges will be taken into consideration for her sentencing, which was adjourned to Friday.

FIRST VICTIM SOUGHT ADVICE ON SON'S CARE, CUSTODY

Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors on Aug 11, 1999, but did not have a practising certificate from Dec 17, 2016, to May 30, 2018, due to a bankruptcy order made against her. The order was annulled on May 22, 2018.

On Dec 18, 2016, a woman emailed Chia to arrange for a consultation on matters relating to the care and custody of her son.

This victim resolved the issues without Chia's involvement, but contacted Chia again in August 2017 after disputes arose with her son's father. She then engaged Chia as a lawyer.  

Chia did not have a practising certificate but concealed that fact. 

On Aug 25, 2017, Chia met the woman and collected S$2,000 in legal fees. 

Between Oct 12, 2017, and Nov 9, 2017, Chia gave the victim legal advice on a court application related to the custody and care matters.  

Chia also drafted supporting affidavits and vetted summons for the court application. 

The court application was filed on Nov 9, 2017, in the Family Justice Courts under another lawyer's name. Chia deliberately excluded her name as she knew she was not authorised to act for the woman. 

Later, the victim wanted Chia to attend a mediation session for the care and custody matters, and Chia finally told her that she was an undischarged bankrupt.

However, Chia made it seem that her bankruptcy order had been set aside. She continued to give the impression that she was authorised to act as the woman's lawyer. 

During a text message exchange on Mar 22, 2018, the woman sent Chia a text stating: "I was so worried you wouldn't get (a practising certificate) in time and I had to last minute find another lawyer. "I trust only you to represent me," she added. 

Chia simply replied: "Don't panic." She did not come clean about her lack of a practising certificate. 

Chia then got another lawyer to attend the woman's court hearing on Apr 11, 2018, despite promising the victim that she would attend the hearing. 

She asked the same lawyer to attend a court hearing on May 8, 2018, to collect the judgment for the woman's case, and avoided meeting the woman near the court. 

"The accused suggested that they meet elsewhere and told (the woman) that there may be a delay in collecting the judgment even on the 'decision day' as some judges would ask parties to provide more information (on) various issues," court documents stated. 

In total, Chia collected S$13,685.60 from the woman in legal fees and disbursements.

SECOND VICTIM A FRIEND GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE

Chia was friends with the second victim, who approached her for legal help for divorce proceedings on around Feb 12, 2018. 

This woman wanted to apply for a personal protection order. 

The two met the next day, and the victim engaged Chia to act for her. Chia hid her lack of practising certificate from this victim. 

She quoted the victim S$20,000 in legal fees, which she described as a "friend rate" that was a third of her usual rates. 

She told the victim about her follow-up steps for the legal proceedings and asked for a cash payment of S$3,000 as a deposit.

Eventually, on Chia's advice, an application for an expedited order for the victim's personal protection order was filed. 

Chia again got another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this application. The victim voiced her concerns about this other lawyer's performance in court, as he seemed to be unfamiliar with her case, but Chia reassured the victim that they were working on the case together. 

The victim paid S$23,000 to Chia on May 2, 2018, in the form of a cash cheque.

In total, the victim forked out S$26,000 before she found out through a Straits Times article that Chia was a bankrupt facing disciplinary proceedings. 

A disciplinary tribunal was later appointed to hear and investigate a complaint of misconduct against Chia.

On Oct 26, 2021, the disciplinary tribunal found that the charges against Chia were made out. 

Chia was struck off on Aug 15, 2022. She made full restitution to the two victims in January 2025. 

Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay sought six to 12 months' jail for Chia. 

She said that Chia had offended for a long period of nine months, and showed premeditation in her actions. 

CLIENT HAD DEPRESSION DUE TO PAST CASES HANDLED

Chia's lawyer Nicholas Jeyaraj Narayanan highlighted Chia's personal circumstances in mitigation. 

Mr Narayanan said his client, who had specialised in family law, had been suffering from depression due to two tragic incidents involving her clients. 

Chia had been the lawyer of a woman whose son was killed by his father in 2015. 

"In the aftermath of the tragedy, there were murmurings in the Family Bar that the affidavit that our client had drafted for (the boy's mother) was the final straw that drove the father to take the life of his son the day after he was served with the mother's affidavit," said the defence counsel.

"Our client did not know what to make of the foregoing murmurings, but it made her feel deeply responsible that she played a part in the father’s actions to suffocate his son."

He added that Chia had advised the mother to give the father overnight access to their son. While reluctant, the mother had followed her advice. It was during this access time that the father killed the boy.

Chia blamed herself for this, wondering if the boy would still be alive if she had advised her client differently, Mr Narayanan said.

"She prayed to cope, but the overwhelming guilt kept coming back to her," he said. 

"She had her own young daughter, and the pain a mother undergoes over the loss of a child cannot be described."

The second tragedy was in 2016 when a female client she represented was slashed by her ex-husband.  

In 2016, the mother in the 2015 case filed a complaint against Chia for overcharging her in legal fees, but this was dismissed. However, the proceedings added to Chia's emotional distress. 

In her application to annul her bankruptcy order, Chia said the culmination of both these cases resulted in her being complacent and careless about her affairs. 

A psychiatrist stated in a report that Chia "probably suffered from post-traumatic stress symptoms" following the incidents.

"However, the severity and incapacity of her symptoms could not be ascertained as a professional clinician did not evaluate her then," added Mr Narayanan.

He also noted that one of Chia's clients started harassing her in June 2020, forcing Chia to file a protection order against her. 

This client "dredged up the 2015 tragedy", causing Chia to suffer a panic attack, the lawyer said. This client sent harassing messages, including: "You caused a five-year-old boy to lose his life. You also tried to ruin my son's life. I will see that you suffer your doomed fate behind bars."

Mr Narayanan sought a fine of S$6,000 for the Legal Professions Act charge and an unspecified fine for the cheating charge.