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.
1953