News From Multiple Perspectives

Law Society Seeks to Strike Pritam Singh Off the Rolls

Published August 1, 2026 at 8:03 AM UTC

Authored by
Every article published on DirectionFreeNews undergoes editorial review by our editorial team. Our editors research publicly available information from multiple trusted news organizations, compare differing perspectives, verify key facts, and publish balanced summaries intended to help readers better understand important events. Our editorial process is designed to reduce editorial bias by considering multiple reputable sources rather than relying on a single viewpoint

The Law Society of Singapore has initiated disciplinary proceedings against Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh, aiming to remove him from the roll of advocates and solicitors. The case is scheduled to be heard on August 13 by the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for legal practitioners in Singapore. The panel will consist of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Kannan Ramesh, and Justice See Kee Oon.

Singh, a non-practising lawyer and Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, was convicted in February 2025 on two counts of lying under oath to the Committee of Privileges. Following his conviction, Parliament passed a motion on January 14, 2026, deeming him unfit to continue as Leader of the Opposition, leading to his formal removal from the position by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on January 15.

The Law Society's action is a mandatory response under the Legal Profession Act, which requires disciplinary proceedings when a lawyer is convicted of offences involving fraud or dishonesty. The Society is represented by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull from Drew & Napier, while Singh is self-represented.

The upcoming hearing will determine whether Singh will be suspended or struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. This case underscores the legal profession's commitment to upholding integrity and the serious consequences of dishonesty within its ranks.

The public and legal community are closely watching the proceedings, as the outcome may set a precedent for similar cases in the future. The decision could also influence public trust in legal institutions and the standards expected of those in positions of authority.