Law Society of Singapore faces internal probe amid resignations and workplace misconduct allegations

The Law Society of Singapore is undergoing an independent investigation following a viral Reddit post published in September 2025 that detailed allegations of workplace bullying, mismanagement, and toxic leadership culture.

The widely shared post, published on the subreddit r/SingaporeRaw, painted a picture of an organisation plagued by fear, favouritism, and dysfunction.

The anonymous author claimed staff were subjected to degrading treatment, expected to be available around the clock, and punished for minor infractions or delays.

The post also raised concerns over how a reported sexual harassment incident was handled, suggesting that no disciplinary action was taken and that the individual involved was allowed to depart quietly.

It further linked to Glassdoor Singapore reviews, which echoed similar claims — contributing to the Law Society's rating of 1.4 stars as of December 2025, with only 5% of reviewers recommending the workplace.

Formal investigation commissioned in wake of online post

Shortly after the post gained public attention, the Law Society’s audit committee appointed TSMP Law Corporation to conduct an independent investigation. Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi, who is overseeing the process, confirmed that a progress report has been submitted, though no further details were disclosed.

According to The Straits Times, multiple current and former staff were interviewed between October and December. One individual submitted a statutory declaration confirming the veracity of information shared with the investigative team.

The probe comes amid an ongoing exodus of staff. In 2025 alone, over one-third of the organisation’s more than 70 full-time employees resigned. Among those who left were a chief executive officer who served for under four months and a longstanding senior executive whose departure reportedly triggered a further wave of resignations.

At one point, the human resources department was left entirely unstaffed, with functions later outsourced.

Reports of overreach, burnout, and internal breakdown

Employees described an environment of extreme overreach, where support staff were inundated with WhatsApp messages at all hours and routinely assigned tasks far outside their job scope — such as making flight bookings or managing car parking arrangements.

There were consistent reports of public humiliation, micromanagement, and favouritism. One interviewee told The Straits Times that employees feared being terminated on short notice for minor delays or perceived inefficiencies.

Performance reviews were allegedly overruled by top-level decision-makers who had minimal contact with rank-and-file staff, further eroding morale.

Reviews posted on Glassdoor described the workplace as “soul crushing” and “beyond repair,” citing a culture that rewards compliance over competence and discourages feedback or innovation.

Financial management also under scrutiny

The investigation also reviewed claims of excessive spending during official overseas trips. Several council members had reportedly raised concerns over financial claims that bypassed full council scrutiny.

Under existing internal protocols, expenses below S$50,000 can be approved solely by the executive committee (Exco), a subgroup of eight council members, without needing authorisation from the full 21-member council.

This practice has raised concerns about accountability and financial oversight, especially in the context of wider structural issues.

Mishandling of misconduct and harassment complaints

The Reddit post and employee accounts also pointed to dissatisfaction with how misconduct allegations were addressed. In one instance, a staff member accused of sexual harassment was reportedly allowed to leave the organisation without consequence, leading some employees to question the organisation’s commitment to safeguarding and procedural fairness.

Anonymous reviewers claimed that employees who raised concerns were often marginalised or silenced, contributing to a climate of distrust.

Broader concerns over accountability and transparency

While the viral Reddit post used confrontational language and attracted a range of user comments — including some that were defamatory or misogynistic — the underlying concerns resonated with many observers familiar with the organisation.

Employee feedback dating as far back as 2023 pointed to recurring dysfunction within the workplace. Former staff described an environment marked by distrust, favouritism, micromanagement, and communication breakdowns between management and employees.

Multiple reviews on Glassdoor Singapore, some written in mid-2025, alleged that the workplace operated on a fear-based culture, with support staff expected to be contactable 24/7 and subjected to public criticism or abrupt dismissal. Leadership was frequently described as unresponsive to feedback and protective of a small inner circle.

One reviewer described the organisation as “a cesspool of gossip and fear,” while another warned that joining it would be “one of the worst career decisions of your life.” Other concerns included claims of racial bias in event celebrations, a lack of performance-based promotions, and a dismissive attitude towards staff welfare and development.

The independent investigation currently underway — led by TSMP Law Corporation — is examining not only the specific allegations made in the viral post, but also broader systemic and cultural issues.

As of mid-December 2025, the Law Society has yet to issue a formal public response.

Governance concerns prompt extraordinary general meeting

Running parallel to the cultural investigation is an ongoing dispute over governance and leadership appointments, which has culminated in the calling of an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 22 December.

In November 2025, the appointment of a new president — who had joined the council as a ministerial appointee rather than through election by members — triggered concern among parts of the legal community.

On 24 November, two senior members, Peter Cuthbert Low and Chandra Mohan Nair, submitted a formal request to convene an EGM. Their proposed resolution sought to ensure that only elected members of the council would be eligible for the position of president.

A closed-door meeting was subsequently held on 3 December, involving Law Minister Edwin Tong and representatives from three factions: members of the current council, the incoming office bearers, and those behind the EGM request. While intended to resolve the disagreement, the meeting did not result in a decision to hold the EGM. Instead, a tea session was arranged for 10 December to allow members of both councils to address the wider membership.

However, on 9 December, Low and Nair informed the Law Society of their intention to proceed independently with the EGM, citing the council’s decision not to initiate the meeting.

And what began as a single motion quickly evolved into a broader platform for reform and accountability.

First motion:
The original resolution proposed by Low and Nair was later amended slightly in language but retained its central aim. It sought to affirm that only elected members of the council should be eligible to be elected to the positions of president, vice-president, and treasurer. The motion was intended to reinforce democratic legitimacy and uphold transparency in leadership appointments.

Second motion:
On 10 December, criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan submitted a second motion. It called for a vote of no confidence against members of the incoming council who had voted in favour of the ministerial appointee’s presidency.

In addition, the motion sought the resignation of current council members who had declined to convene the EGM following the formal request.

Third motion:
On 12 December, a third motion was submitted by lawyer Manimaran Arumugam. This motion proposed a refined version of the first, explicitly stating that only elected council members should be eligible to serve in the roles of president, vice-president, and treasurer — thereby codifying the eligibility criteria across all key officeholder positions.

These motions are scheduled to be debated at the forthcoming EGM, which is being convened independently by members dissatisfied with the existing leadership structure and its decision-making processes.