Law Society v Lee Suet Fern: Legal Profession, Solicitor-Client Relationship, Professional Conduct, Breach
The Law Society of Singapore applied for sanctions against Lee Suet Fern, an advocate and solicitor, for misconduct related to the preparation and execution of her father-in-law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will. The Court of Three Judges found that while there was no implied retainer between Lee Suet Fern and her father-in-law, she was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and suspended her from practice for 15 months.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges1.2 Outcome
Respondent suspended from practising as a solicitor for a period of 15 months.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Three Judges finds Lee Suet Fern guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, suspending her for 15 months.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Partial | Partial | |
| Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) | Respondent | Individual | Partial | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Lee Suet Fern assisted in preparing Lee Kuan Yew's last will.
- Lee Suet Fern sent a draft will to Lee Kuan Yew, representing it as the original agreed will.
- The draft will differed from the original will in several respects.
- Lee Suet Fern's husband was a beneficiary under the will.
- Lee Suet Fern did not advise Lee Kuan Yew to seek independent legal advice.
- Lee Suet Fern made arrangements for the execution of the will without involving Lee Kuan Yew's usual lawyer.
- Lee Suet Fern failed to verify the accuracy of the draft will with the original will.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (alias Lim Suet Fern), Originating Summons No 2 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 255
- The Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern), , [2020] SGDT 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Will executed | |
| Second Will executed | |
| Third Will executed | |
| Fourth Will executed | |
| Fifth Will executed | |
| Sixth Will executed | |
| Respondent sent email to Testator with draft will | |
| Last Will executed | |
| Codicil to Last Will executed | |
| Testator passed away | |
| Probate extracted | |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers filed complaint against the Respondent | |
| Law Society filed Statement of Case against the Respondent | |
| Disciplinary tribunal appointed | |
| Disciplinary tribunal issued its grounds of decision | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Implied Retainer
- Outcome: The court found that no implied retainer existed between the Respondent and the Testator.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking off order
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 221 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 875 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Dean v Allin & Watts | Unknown | No | [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 249 | Unknown | Cited for the objective consideration of all the circumstances in determining whether an intention to enter into a contractual relationship ought fairly and properly to be imputed to the parties. |
| Stack v Dowden | House of Lords | No | [2007] 2 AC 432 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of inferred and imputed intention. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | High Court | No | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of inferred and imputed intention. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the putative client’s subjective understanding of his relationship with the putative solicitor is not determinative of whether a solicitor-client relationship should be imputed in the circumstances. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian Sidambaram | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 674 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the advocate and solicitor’s perspective must be considered in an objective context. |
| Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 761 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a retainer may be implied where, on an objective consideration of all the circumstances, an intention to enter into such a contractual relationship ought fairly and properly to be imputed to all the parties. |
| Regina (Prudential plc and another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and others intervening) | Supreme Court | No | [2013] 2 AC 185 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that any communications between a solicitor and a prospective client remain subject to legal advice privilege even in the absence of a concluded retainer. |
| BOM v BOK and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider in determining whether an implied retainer ought to be imputed to the putative solicitor and the putative client. |
| Low Ah Cheow and others v Ng Hock Guan | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities, which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer | High Court | No | [2019] 4 SLR 1427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a solicitor prefers her own interests to that of her client in conflict of interest cases. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang | High Court | No | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the duty of unflinching loyalty requires a solicitor to place her client’s interests above those of her own as well as those of third parties. |
| Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that before any conflict of interest can be waived, the principal must be fully apprised of all the material facts. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matter | High Court | No | [2017] 4 SLR 1369 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that making a statement recklessly would amount to subjective dishonesty. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | No | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a statement which is false, but which was honestly believed to be true at the time it was made, can only be said to have been made carelessly, but not recklessly. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra | High Court | No | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 490 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that solicitors were struck off for acting with deliberate deceit and dishonesty in their dealings with their clients so as to advance their personal interests. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang | High Court | No | [2018] 5 SLR 1068 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court gave weight to the considerable potential harm that could have been caused by the solicitor’s failure to witness the donor’s signature of a power of attorney. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin and another | High Court | No | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a severe penalty was warranted by the underlying rationale for the rule proscribing a conflict of interest. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Sum Chong Mun and another | High Court | No | [2017] 4 SLR 707 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Kay was suspended from practice for 30 months because she had procured Sum’s assistance despite her knowledge of the duties which Sum was obliged to discharge as a certificate issuer. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 98(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(h) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Last Will
- Implied Retainer
- Misconduct
- Solicitor
- Conflict of Interest
- Professional Conduct
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Tribunal
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Solicitor
- Misconduct
- Disciplinary
- Will
- Estate
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Wills and Estates