Executive Summary

The Law Society of Singapore faces a multifaceted governance and workplace crisis in 2025, involving allegations of workplace bullying, unprecedented staff turnover, financial irregularities, and a constitutional controversy over presidential appointment. This case study examines the interlocking crises that have shaken Singapore’s principal professional body for lawyers.

Timeline of Events

September 2025

• Anonymous online post alleges workplace bullying at the Law Society
• Post also raises concerns about excessive spending during overseas trips
• Law Society’s Audit Committee commissions TSMP Law Corporation to conduct independent investigation
• Approximately one-third of the organization’s 70+ full-time employees resign throughout 2025

November 2025

• November 17: Dinesh Singh Dhillon announced as President-elect for 2026
• Dhillon is a ministerial appointee, not an elected council member
• November 24: Group led by former presidents Peter Cuthbert Low and Chandra Mohan Nair requisition an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM)

December 2025

• December 3: Law Minister Edwin Tong brokers meeting between three factions
• December 5: Law Society invites members to tea session on December 10
• December 8: Deadline passes for Law Society to call EGM
• December 9: Requisitionists announce they will hold EGM themselves on December 22
• December 10: Tea session held; compromise reached (Dhillon serves in 2026, must stand for election if he wants to continue)
• December 16: Media reports details of workplace investigation
• December 17: President Lisa Sam posts LinkedIn statement expressing surprise at leaked investigation details
• December 22: EGM scheduled to proceed despite compromise

Details of Grievances

1. Workplace Bullying and Harassment Allegations

Nature of Complaints:

• Constant availability demands: Staff received incessant WhatsApp messages on weekends and during leave periods
• Tasks outside job scope: Employees were asked to park cars, book flights, and perform personal errands
• Condescending treatment: Staff reported being spoken to in belittling tones in front of colleagues
• Fear-based culture: Employees feared termination if tasks were not completed swiftly
• Sexual harassment concerns: The anonymous post complained about how a sexual harassment allegation was handled
• 24/7 work expectations: Culture described as demanding round-the-clock availability

Scale of Impact:

• Approximately one-third (23+) of more than 70 full-time employees resigned in 2025
• Chief Executive quit less than four months into the role
• Departure of long-serving senior executive triggered further resignations
• Human Resources department was left completely unstaffed at one point
• At least one employee prepared a statutory declaration before a Commissioner for Oaths to confirm information provided to investigators

Investigation Status:

• TSMP Law Corporation conducting independent probe since September 2025
• Interviews conducted with former and current employees between October-December 2025
• Progress report submitted to Audit Committee
• President Lisa Sam repeatedly requested written details of allegations but received none
• Investigation leaked to media before subject of allegations received details

2. Financial Irregularities

Allegations of Excessive Spending:

• Concerns about excessive spending during overseas trips
• Multiple council members raised concerns about financial claims
• Issue relates to governance protocols: expenses below $50,000 do not require full 21-member council authorization
• Such claims only need approval from Executive Committee (Exco), a subgroup of 8 members
• Questions about oversight and accountability mechanisms

Governance Implications:

• Potential bypassing of proper financial controls
• Questions about transparency in expenditure approvals
• Concerns about what constitutes “excessive” in organizational context

3. Presidential Appointment Controversy

The Constitutional Question:

Dinesh Singh Dhillon’s path to presidency represents a departure from convention:

• Appointed to Council under Section 48(1)(b) of Legal Profession Act as ministerial appointee (one of three such positions)
• Two-year term began September 1, 2025
• Won internal Council vote for presidency by slim margin over incumbent Vice-President Samuel Chacko
• Vote among 21-member Council (15 elected, 3 ministerial appointees, 3 co-opted members)
• First president-elect not chosen through general membership election

The Opposition’s Case:

Veteran lawyers argue this undermines Bar independence:

• Past practice dictates president should be elected by general membership
• Convention necessary for good governance and confidence in Bar independence
• Concerns that ministerial appointments could influence Bar autonomy
• EGM resolution seeks to record that only elected members should serve as president
• Over 25 members signed requisition for EGM (minimum threshold met)

The Defense:

Supporters argue appointment is legal and precedented:

• Legal Profession Act allows all Council members to vote for president
• Due process followed under existing law
• First Law Society president (C.C. Tan) was also an appointed member
• Thio Shen Yi (former president) served as vice-president while ministerial appointee in 2012-2013
• No formal rule against unelected member becoming president

4. Procedural Governance Failures

Law Society’s Response to EGM Requisition:

• Valid requisition submitted November 24, 2025 (25+ members)
• Law Society had 14 days to call EGM (deadline: December 8)
• No EGM notice issued by deadline
• Requisitionists invoked right under Section 68 to convene meeting themselves
• Law Society only circulated official notice on December 10, after requisitionists’ December 9 notice
• Critics argue Council attempted to avoid democratic accountability

Confidentiality Breaches:

• Investigation details leaked to media before subject was informed
• President Lisa Sam learned of allegations through The Straits Times
• TSMP joint managing partner made public statements about confidential investigation
• Sam expressed concern this could breach duties to Audit Committee

Key Stakeholders and Their Positions

Current Leadership

• Lisa Sam Hui Min (Outgoing President, 2024-2025): Expressed surprise and concern about investigation leaks; will remain council member
• Dinesh Singh Dhillon (President-elect 2026): Ministerial appointee, co-head of Allen & Gledhill’s international arbitration practice, chairs Pro Bono SG; declined to comment publicly

Opposition Leaders

• Peter Cuthbert Low (Former President 1993-1994): Leading EGM requisition; paid for venue upfront
• Chandra Mohan K Nair (Former President): Co-leading EGM requisition
• Luo Ling Ling (Lawyer): Publicly disclosed EGM details after Council inaction; defended disclosure as necessary

Mediators and Supporters

• Edwin Tong (Law Minister): Brokered December 3 meeting between factions
• Jimmy Yim SC: Facilitated compromise solution
• Thio Shen Yi SC (Former President, TSMP joint managing partner): Confirmed investigation; opposed EGM as divisive; argued appointment is legal

Other Figures

• Samuel Chacko (Vice-President): Lost presidential election to Dhillon; will remain council member
• Anonymous complainants: Staff who reported workplace issues; some fear reprisal

Organizational Context

Law Society Structure

• Membership: Approximately 6,400-6,434 practicing lawyers (as of August 2025)
• Council Composition: 21 members total
  • 15 elected by general membership
  • 3 appointed by Law Minister under Section 48(1)(b)
  • 3 co-opted by Council under Section 48(1)(c)
• Office Bearers: President, 2 Vice-Presidents, Treasurer (elected annually by Council)
• Term: All Council members serve two-year terms
• Elections: General membership votes held every October

Historical Context

The Law Society has traditionally emphasized Bar independence from government influence. This institutional culture makes the presidential appointment controversy particularly sensitive. In 2020, the Society led initiatives against workplace bullying, holding a signing ceremony for “The Law Firms’ Pledge on Preventing Bullying and Harassment in Singapore’s Legal Profession,” making current internal allegations especially ironic and damaging to credibility.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Relevant Laws

• Legal Profession Act Section 48(1)(b): Authorizes Law Minister to appoint up to 3 Council members
• Legal Profession Act Section 68: Allows 25+ members to requisition EGM; if Council doesn’t call meeting within 14 days, requisitionists may convene it themselves
• Legal Profession Act Section 93(5): Requires Council to publish Disciplinary Tribunal findings
• Workplace Fairness Act 2025: New anti-discrimination legislation (effective 2026-2027) requiring written grievance-handling processes

Financial Governance

• Expenses under $50,000: Require only Executive Committee (8 members) approval
• Expenses over $50,000: Require full Council (21 members) authorization
• Questions about adequacy of current thresholds and oversight

Analysis of Root Causes

1. Cultural and Management Issues

• Hierarchical culture: Power imbalances between senior leadership and staff
• Inadequate boundaries: Blurred lines between professional and personal demands
• Fear-based management: Staff afraid to speak up or refuse unreasonable requests
• Insufficient HR capacity: HR department became unstaffed during crisis period
• Lack of accountability mechanisms: Despite having anti-bullying policies, reporting mechanisms appear ineffective

2. Structural Governance Weaknesses

• Opacity in financial approvals: $50,000 threshold may be too high for adequate oversight
• Confidentiality failures: Investigation details leaked before proper notification
• Council responsiveness: Failure to call EGM within statutory timeframe
• Dual accountability: Ministerial appointees create potential conflicts between Bar independence and government influence

3. Leadership Transition Challenges

• Rapid turnover: Multiple senior departures in short period
• Loss of institutional knowledge: Long-serving executives departed
• Contested succession: Presidential appointment triggered constitutional crisis
• Fractured unity: Multiple factions within legal community

4. Communication Breakdowns

• Investigation opacity: Subject not informed of allegations despite requests
• Public leaks: Confidential matters disclosed to media prematurely
• Council silence: Inadequate communication about EGM requisition
• Mixed messaging: Compromise reached but divisions remain

Possible Outcomes and Scenarios

Scenario 1: Status Quo Maintained (Low Probability ~20%)

If EGM vote fails or is narrowly defeated:

• Dhillon continues as president through 2026
• Investigation concludes with minor recommendations
• Gradual stabilization of staff situation
• Divisions within Bar remain but suppressed

Consequences:

• Undermined confidence in Bar independence
• Continued risk of staff departures
• Unresolved cultural issues
• Potential for future crises

Scenario 2: Comprehensive Reform (Moderate-High Probability ~40%)

If EGM vote succeeds with strong mandate:

• Resolution passed requiring future presidents be elected members
• Dhillon serves 2026 term, then must stand for general election
• Investigation leads to significant workplace culture reforms
• New financial oversight mechanisms implemented
• Independent review of governance structures

Key Reforms Likely Include:

• Mandatory anti-bullying training for all leadership
• Strengthened HR capacity and independence
• Lower financial approval thresholds
• Clear work-life boundary policies
• Anonymous reporting mechanisms with protection from retaliation
• Regular staff satisfaction surveys
• External governance audit

Positive Outcomes:

• Restored confidence in institutional independence
• Improved workplace culture
• Enhanced accountability mechanisms
• Professional body leads by example

Challenges:

• Implementation requires sustained commitment
• Cultural change takes time
• Resource intensive
• Resistance from some stakeholders

Scenario 3: Partial Resolution with Ongoing Tensions (Moderate Probability ~30%)

Compromise holds but tensions simmer:

• EGM resolution passes symbolically
• Dhillon completes 2026 term
• Investigation produces recommendations but limited implementation
• Some workplace improvements but underlying culture unchanged
• Staff turnover stabilizes but remains elevated

Characteristics:

• Surface-level compliance with reforms
• Procedural changes without cultural shift
• Bar remains divided between factions
• Periodic flare-ups of controversy

Scenario 4: Escalation and Crisis Deepening (Low-Moderate Probability ~10%)

If situation deteriorates further:

• Investigation reveals more serious misconduct
• Additional high-profile resignations
• Legal actions by former employees
• Government intervention or inquiry
• Reputational damage to Singapore legal profession
• International professional bodies take notice

Worst-Case Elements:

• Criminal allegations emerge
• Mass exodus of staff
• Loss of public confidence
• Regulatory intervention required
• Long-term damage to Bar’s standing

Critical Issues Requiring Resolution

Immediate (0-3 months)

1. Complete investigation transparently: Provide subjects with allegations, ensure fair process
2. EGM outcome: Resolve constitutional question about presidential elections
3. Stabilize staffing: Rebuild HR department, address retention
4. Restore confidentiality: Investigate and address leaks

Short-term (3-6 months)

1. Implement workplace reforms: Based on investigation findings
2. Review financial controls: Assess adequacy of $50,000 threshold
3. Clarify constitutional conventions: Formalize practices regarding elected vs appointed members
4. Rebuild internal trust: Between leadership, staff, and membership

Medium-term (6-12 months)

1. Cultural transformation: Embed new workplace values and behaviors
2. Governance review: External assessment of structures and processes
3. Succession planning: Ensure stable leadership transitions
4. Membership engagement: Rebuild confidence in institutional leadership

Long-term (1-2 years)

1. Constitutional amendments: If needed to codify democratic conventions
2. Benchmarking: Compare governance practices with international professional bodies
3. Continuous improvement: Regular reviews and updates
4. Reputation rebuilding: Restore standing as model professional organization

Stakeholder Impact Assessment

Staff (Current and Former)

• High Impact: Careers disrupted, wellbeing affected, legal protections needed
• Needs: Fair investigation, protection from retaliation, remediation if misconduct confirmed

Law Society Members

• High Impact: Confidence in professional body shaken, constitutional principles at stake
• Needs: Transparent governance, democratic accountability, Bar independence preserved

Leadership (Lisa Sam, Dinesh Dhillon)

• High Impact: Reputations at stake, legacy considerations, professional standing
• Needs: Fair processes, due process, opportunity to respond to allegations

Singapore Legal Profession

• Moderate-High Impact: Reputation affects all lawyers, client confidence considerations
• Needs: Swift resolution, demonstration of ethical leadership, restored credibility

Public and Clients

• Moderate Impact: Confidence in legal profession, questions about self-regulation
• Needs: Assurance that lawyers’ professional body upholds highest standards

Government

• Moderate Impact: Questions about effectiveness of ministerial appointments, oversight role
• Needs: Stable, credible professional body; balance between independence and accountability

Lessons and Broader Implications

For Professional Bodies

1. Governance matters: Robust checks and balances prevent crises
2. Culture requires constant attention: Policies alone don’t prevent misconduct
3. Transparency builds trust: Opacity breeds suspicion and division
4. Democratic legitimacy crucial: Perception of independence vital for professional bodies
5. Act on complaints early: Problems fester when ignored

For Singapore Context

1. Workplace culture challenges: High-pressure environment across sectors
2. Balancing efficiency and welfare: Economic success shouldn’t compromise wellbeing
3. Role of ministerial appointments: Tension between government involvement and professional independence
4. Importance of whistleblowing protections: Fear prevents reporting of serious issues
5. New legislation timely: Workplace Fairness Act 2025 addresses gaps but cultural change needed

For Legal Profession Globally

1. Bullying endemic: International Bar Association 2019 survey found widespread issues
2. Status quo insufficient: Pledges and policies need enforcement mechanisms
3. Leadership accountability: Senior figures must model appropriate behavior
4. Structural reforms needed: Beyond individual cases, systemic changes required
5. Profession must self-regulate effectively: Or face external regulation

Recommendations

For Law Society Council

1. Ensure investigation is completed fairly, transparently, with natural justice
2. Implement all reasonable investigation recommendations promptly
3. Commission independent governance review
4. Formalize constitutional conventions regarding presidential elections
5. Establish genuinely independent grievance mechanism for staff
6. Conduct comprehensive workplace culture assessment
7. Implement meaningful financial governance reforms
8. Rebuild HR capacity with qualified, independent professionals
9. Develop comprehensive communication strategy
10. Create timeline for reforms with measurable outcomes

For Law Society Members

1. Participate actively in EGM and vote based on principles
2. Hold leadership accountable regardless of outcome
3. Support cultural change initiatives
4. Report concerns through proper channels
5. Contribute to rebuilding institutional trust

For Government/Law Ministry

1. Review adequacy of current Legal Profession Act provisions
2. Consider whether ministerial appointment process needs refinement
3. Monitor situation without undermining Bar independence
4. Ensure Workplace Fairness Act implementation supports professional bodies
5. Facilitate external governance review if requested

For Affected Individuals

1. Seek legal advice about rights and protections
2. Document experiences thoroughly
3. Utilize support services
4. Consider whether formal complaints or legal action appropriate
5. Connect with others who may have similar experiences

Conclusion

The Law Society of Singapore faces its most significant crisis in recent memory, with workplace, financial, and constitutional issues converging simultaneously. The outcome will define the Bar’s independence, the profession’s commitment to workplace wellbeing, and the effectiveness of self-regulation.

The December 22 EGM represents a critical juncture. Beyond the immediate vote, the situation demands genuine cultural transformation, structural reforms, and renewed commitment to the principles the legal profession espouses. Half-measures or cosmetic changes risk prolonging the crisis and inflicting lasting damage on the institution’s credibility.

Ultimately, this case study illustrates how interconnected governance failures—cultural, procedural, and constitutional—can rapidly undermine even respected institutions. The path forward requires courage, transparency, and a genuine commitment to the values of justice, fairness, and accountability that lawyers advocate for their clients. The Law Society’s response will be closely watched as a test of whether the profession can hold itself to the standards it expects of others.

The legal community, staff, and public deserve nothing less than a thorough reckoning and meaningful reform. The alternative—continued dysfunction and declining trust—serves no one’s interests and would represent a profound failure of professional leadership.