‘Thoroughly unfit’: Fugitive lawyer Charles Yeo struck off the rolls

Justice Chong said Yeo’s “unfitness” is evidenced by his “clear inability to fulfil the essential responsibilities of a legal practitioner”.

The “cumulative effect of all his ethical transgressions” paints the picture of a legal practitioner who “held a cavalier disregard” for safeguards designed to protect clients, flouted an advocate’s most central duty to the court and “so consistently conducted himself on a public platform with such an unbecoming comportment as to bring disrepute” to the profession, said Justice Chong.

Yeo was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2016. He did not have a valid practising certificate between April 2022 and June 2022.

Around February 2022, an accountancy practice was appointed by LawSoc to inspect the books of account of Whitefield Law, where Yeo was a director.

A subsequent report identified at least 185 breaches of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (SAR). These were for instances such as where money was withdrawn from the client account without the court’s permission, or when client monies were deposited in the office account instead of the client account.

For the social media charges against Yeo, the court noted four categories with “objectionable contents”.

These were: Publications which scandalised the judiciary, publications which attacked the integrity, impartiality or independence of the Attorney-General, publications amounting to sub judice contempt of court and publications making “discourteous attacks against fellow members of the Singapore Bar”.

The judgment listed long paragraphs from his offending posts, which CNA will not be reproducing.

The court found that Yeo “revealed numerous character defects” which rendered him “plainly unfit to remain as a legal practitioner in Singapore”.

He had a “pattern of professional dereliction and a cavalier disregard for the serious responsibility of holding clients’ monies and taking due care to safeguard clients’ crucial interests in the proper protection of their funds”, said Justice Chong.

Yeo “simply could not be bothered to ensure that Whitefield’s financial records were in order”, he added.

As for the migrant worker cases, the court found that Yeo’s “sheer disregard” for their interests was “utterly appalling”.

Yeo’s conduct in court demonstrated a “particularly severe character defect – dishonesty”, said Justice Chong.

“Lastly, the respondent’s allegations and aspersions, ventilated over the public platform of Instagram, were highly dishonourable, and for them to have been made by a member of the legal profession unquestionably tended to shame and bring discredit to an honourable profession.”

“His attacks on legal institutions and individual lawyers were all filled with invective and gratuitously vituperative insults using vulgar language to humiliate and degrade the targets of his vitriol,” noted Justice Chong.

“There is no question that the average right-thinking member of the public would perceive such conduct to be disgraceful both to the respondent as an individual and, more significantly, to the legal profession – indeed, the very same profession whose imprimatur of legitimacy he wielded to clothe his attacks with a patina of authenticity and to masquerade as a knowledgeable ‘insider’ unearthing hidden truths about the domestic legal system.”

Justice Chong also referenced Yeo’s “total absence of remorse and contrition for his misconduct”, and how he has not offered any apology to date.

Yeo declined to participate in the disciplinary tribunal proceedings, boycotting them along with the hearing by the Court of Three Judges.

“His lack of any ethical insight into his own shortcomings to conduct even the most basic of checks to protect his clients’ interests is apparently lost on him,” said Justice Chong.

“In light of his attitude, there is little to no chance of the respondent being rehabilitated and rectifying any of the defects of character that we have identified.”