Name: Johnson Loo Teck Lee (lu de li)
Professional registration number: AAS 600058/2001,
National Identity card number: S7629531Z
Age: 48
Business: Partner at Drew& Napier, proprietor of 202144179M Damu Nasha Pte Ltd - Blood and Thirst, property atthe flow
Residential address: 14 Jalan Kathi 468666 with
Link:
https://sg.linkedin.com/in/johnson-loo-977ba23
https://www.drewnapier.com/Our-Lawyers/Johnson-Loo
https://www.drewnapier.com/getattachment/Our-Lawyers/Johnson-Loo/Johnson-Loo_CV_150724.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf

lovers:
Lew Zi Qi https://sg.linkedin.com/in/zi-qi-lew-a4a126287 - see drunk profile photo
Tan Wee Kio Terence
Wang Sheng Yew

Spouse Linda Joelle Ong
National Identity card number: S7816764E
Professional identity card number: AAS 600099/2001
Business: Deputy Managing Director Engelin Teh Partners, proprietor of 202144179M Damu Nasha Pte Ltd - Blood and Thirst, singer Lunarin + Watain, and property at The Flow
Social: https://sg.linkedin.com/in/linda-ong-85660b3?trk=public_post_feed-actor-name


Reason:
 all knowingly and flagrantly breaking Estate Agents Act to demand commission from Jonathan kao when there is no contract, when they were discharged, when they threatened violence.
Hiding behind without prejudice letters to break the law and threaten violence.
Threatened and intimidated victim to identify who made threats, what threats and harm that will befall them.

TOGETHER WITH LEW ZI QI, TAN WEE KIO TERENCE WANG SHENG YEW
BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 10:
Expressly, knowingly assisting and aiding Lee Jia Hui Candice S8509638I and Lee Shi Hui Laura S8803974B to breach Estate Agents Act demanding fee, commission or reward despite not having written agreement, and victim "should not try to rely on this technicality to avoid paying Laura for the work that was done by LAURA".
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules expressly say "A legal practitioner must not engage in any conduct which would be unlawful, unethical or otherwise improper, whether or not such conduct would promote the cause of his or her client."



TOGETHER WITH LEW ZI QI, TAN WEE KIO TERENCE WANG SHENG YEW
BREACH OF PRACTICE DIRECTION 9.1.2, RULE 8(5)
Where any civil claim made against a person, by a client of a legal practitioner, remains unsatisfied, the legal practitioner must not threaten the institution of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person.
TERENCE TAN WEE KIO + WANG SHANG YEW 3 May 2024:
"Our clients are also aware that your client has, in parallel with sending settlement offers through your firm, separately pushed complaints with the Council for Estate Agencies and the Legal Service Commission. This is not compatible with amicable resolution of the dispute. OUR CLIENTS HAVE THIS FAR NOT LODGED ANY COMPLAINTS WITH THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE, OR WITH YOUR CLIENT'S EMPLOYER. Your client's aggravation of the dispute is again not compatible with amicable resolution."

"THUS FAR NOT LODGED ANY COMPLAINTS WITH THE LAW SOCIETY" is apparently NOT a threat of proceedings, a "technicality"? That Drew & Napier seem happy to rely on when it suits them.

Are you sure Wang Shang Yew should have been allowed to be called?


Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
Rule 10
Responsibility for client’s conduct
10.—(1)  The following principles guide the interpretation of this rule.
Principles
(a) A legal practitioner’s duty to assist in the administration of justice includes a responsibility, commensurate with the amount of control the legal practitioner has over his or her client, to prevent the client from misleading a court or tribunal in any manner and from otherwise acting improperly.
(b) A legal practitioner must exercise professional judgment over the substance and purpose of any advice which the legal practitioner gives and any document which the legal practitioner drafts.
(c) A legal practitioner must not engage in any conduct which would be unlawful, unethical or otherwise improper, whether or not such conduct would promote the cause of his or her client.
(2)  A legal practitioner whose client is a party to any proceedings before a court or tribunal must inform the client of the client’s responsibilities to the court or tribunal, and to every other party to those proceedings, including the client’s duties —
(a) to be truthful towards the court or tribunal; and
(b) to comply with every legal requirement concerning the conduct and presentation of the client’s case.
(3)  To the extent that a legal practitioner is able, the legal practitioner must prevent his or her client from, must not be a party to, and must not assist the client in, doing either or both of the following:
(a) suppressing evidence;
(b) giving false evidence or false information to a court or tribunal.
(4)  Where a legal practitioner knows that his or her client is about to give, or has given, false evidence or false information to a court or tribunal, the legal practitioner must —
(a) cease to act for the client; or
(b) if the legal practitioner continues to act for the client, conduct the client’s case in a manner that does not perpetuate the falsehood.
(5)  A legal practitioner must not render to his or her client any advice which the legal practitioner knows or has reasonable grounds to believe is sought by the client for any dishonest, fraudulent or unlawful purpose.
(6)  A legal practitioner must not knowingly assist or permit his or her client —
(a) to mislead a court or tribunal; or
(b) to do any other thing which the legal practitioner considers to be dishonest.




Expressly breaking the law (see Estate Agents Act below) BY ALL THE ABOVE (is that not a breach of professional conduct and ethics law society?) in a flagrant attempt to extort money:
44.—(1)  Subject to subsection (4), where an estate agent proposes or undertakes (whether or not for a commission or other fee) to perform estate agency work for a client, whether as regards a particular property or not, a right or other cause of action whereby agreed sums, damages or any other relief or remedy may be recovered or obtained in legal proceedings as regards the proposal or undertaking shall lie at the suit of the estate agent if, and only if —
(a) an estate agency agreement embodying the terms of the proposal or undertaking, being an agreement between the estate agent and the client which is in the form prescribed and which contains such particulars (if any) in respect of the proposal or undertaking as are prescribed for the purposes of this section has been entered into and, in the case of a written document, properly executed; and
(b) the estate agent was a licensed estate agent at the time when the estate agency agreement was so entered into and executed.
(2)  Subject to subsection (4), where an estate agent makes a proposal or gives an undertaking to perform estate agency work for a client as described in subsection (1), the agent is entitled to recover from, or to require the payment by any other person of, any amount in respect of any outgoing paid or payable by the agent as regards any acquisition or disposition of any property to which the proposal or undertaking relates if, and only if —
(a) an estate agency agreement between the estate agent and the client which is in the prescribed form and contains, in respect of the proposal or undertaking, such particulars (if any) as are prescribed for the purposes of this section has been entered into and, in the case of a written document, properly executed;
(b) the estate agency agreement expressly provides for such recovery or reimbursement; and
(c) the estate agent was a licensed estate agent at the time when the estate agency agreement was so entered into and executed.
(3)  A right or other cause of action described in subsection (1) shall not lie at the suit of any person other than the estate agent within the meaning of this section by reason only of anything contained in this section.
(4)  Regulations made under section 72 may exclude any class or description of estate agency work from the operation of subsections (1) and (2).

Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care
7.—(1)  Estate agents and salespersons shall not do anything that may bring discredit or disrepute to the estate agency trade or industry.
(2)  Sub-paragraph (1) means, among other things, that estate agents and salespersons —
(a) must not do anything that may be fraudulent, dishonest, deceitful or misleading;
(b) must not engage in touting; and
(c) must not use threatening or harassing tactics or apply unreasonable or improper pressure.
...
(4)  Estate agents and salespersons must not solicit for the payment of any reward, commission or fee from any person who did not engage their services.

clear screenshots showing verbatim breaches of Estate Agents Act by LEE JIA HUI CANDICE S8509638I and Lee Shi Hui Laura S8803974B and DREW & NAPIER LOO TECK LEE JOHNSON LEW ZI QI TAN WEE KIO TERENCE WANG SHENG YEW:

Drew & Napier 2022:
"In respect of Laura, Candice's position is that your client should pay his 50% share for the work done by Laura in assisting your client and Candice in selling the matrimonial home. We are instructed that Laura was originally appointed as the estate agent for the marketing and sale of the matrimonial home at 15 Sembawang Crescent #11-26 Skypark Residences Singapore 747060. we are further instructed that your client refused to pay Laura for her commission , even though it was Laura who found the buyer, prepared the paperwork for the sale and procured the buyer's agreement for the same. in the circumstances, we are instructed that it is only fair that Laura be paid for her work"

Drew & Napier 2022:
"In respect of Laura's work done in selling the matrimonial home, our client notes that your client does not dispute that the parties had indeed appointed Laura as the estate agent and that it was Laura who found the buyer, prepared the paperwork for the sale and procured the buyers agreement for the same, save that your client is objecting on a technicality that there was no signed agreement.
We are further instructed that in any event and at your client's request, an engagement letter was prepared but he refused to sign it. In the circumstances, we are instructed that your client should not try to rely on this technicality to avoid paying Laura for the work that was done by her.
notwithstanding the above, in the spirit of compromise, LAURA is prepared to lower the quantum of your client's payment from SGD13,500 TO SGD10,000."

Candice Lee Jia Hui 2021:
"YEON has discharged herself. Both YEON AND LAURA are no longer representing us. Prop!ex is aware of this situation and does not wish to get involved even if this means they will not receive commission. Propnexs advice to LAURA AND YEON is to allow us to deal privately with the buyer agent."

LAURA Lee Shi Hui 2021:
" Hi sis, understand that Jonathan has some concerns about our working relationship. As such it might be best for me to excuse myself from the sale of this house.
Since there is a pending offer, I would be happy to link you and Jonathan up with the buyer's agent so you can proceed with the transaction without me. I WILL NOT BE COLLECTING ANY COMMISSION / FEES FOR THE SERVICES I HAVE RENDERED THUS FAR."

LAURA Lee Shi Hui 2021:
"I want to hire someone to hurt him"

CEA Adrian Gob + Kasturi Somu et al: [cea22040106] Cea had investigated into your complaint thoroughly and found no evidence of breaches of the Estate Agents Act by the agents involved. As we explained to you in our correspondence dated 12 May 2023, we warned them to comply with the COVID-19 Regulations accordingly."

Apparently verbatim breaches of the Estate Agents Act are entirely permissible by legal service officers and their family as long as represented by Drew & Napier, and continue to harass and harangue in DC/OC 388 AND 436/2024 AND FC/D 1154/2024.



Sent with Proton Mail secure email.