Law Society of Singapore v Disciplinary Committee: Kwa Kim Li & Quahe Mei Lin - Professional Conduct & Touting

The Law Society of Singapore applied to the High Court for an order directing Vivien Quahe Mei Lin and Kwa Kim Li to show cause for disciplinary action under the Legal Profession Act, alleging improper conduct related to a property developer's scheme. The Law Society was dissatisfied with the Disciplinary Committee's determination that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed. The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the solicitors had not breached the relevant rules or engaged in conduct unbefitting a solicitor.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application concerning Kwa Kim Li & Quahe Mei Lin, regarding professional conduct and touting, related to a property developer's scheme.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication dismissedLost
Disciplinary CommitteeRespondentOther
Kwa Kim LiRespondentIndividualNo cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existsWon
Vivien Quahe Mei LinRespondentIndividualNo cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existsWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lim Teong QweeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Peter Cuthbert LowPeter Low Tang & Belinda Ang
Christine SekhonPeter Low Tang & Belinda Ang
Harry EliasHarry Elias Partnership
Yeo Yen PingHarry Elias Partnership
Josephine LowMichael Khoo & Partners
Michael KhooMichael Khoo & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The Council of the Law Society received information that Winfast, the developers of Sunrise Gardens, informed intended purchasers that they would settle their legal costs, stamp duty and disbursements only if certain law firms were appointed.
  2. The identified firms were M/s Lee & Lee and M/s Wilfred Yeo Quahe & Tan, with Ms Kwa and Ms Quahe as the partners handling the project, respectively.
  3. The Council viewed that advocates and solicitors cannot participate in any arrangement which unduly influences a purchaser to instruct a particular law firm.
  4. Winfast invited M/s Wilfred Yeo Quahe & Tan and M/s Lee & Lee to be on a panel of solicitors together with M/s Yeo Leong & Peh.
  5. The purpose of empanelling these three firms was to enhance Winfast's scheme of offering free conveyancing, stamp duty and other disbursements to purchasers of the units in the development only if they used any of these firms as their solicitors in the transaction.
  6. Ms Kwa and Ms Quahe cautioned that this may be viewed by some as touting and emphasised that Winfast must make it very clear to the purchasers that they were not compelled to appoint their firms to act for them and that they were free to use whichever firm they wanted.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The Law Society of Singapore v Disciplinary Committee, OS 1782/1999, [2000] SGHC 169

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Curbs implemented on property speculation.
Sunrise Gardens project launched in Singapore.
Council referred information to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel.
Inquiry Committee issued its report.
Council referred the matter back to the Inquiry Committee for reconsideration.
Inquiry Committee issued a further report.
Council requested the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Committee in respect of Ms Quahe.
Council requested the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Committee in respect of Ms Kwa.
Disciplinary Committee was appointed in respect of Ms Quahe.
Disciplinary Committee was appointed in respect of Ms Kwa.
Notice published by the English Law Society in its Gazette.
Disciplinary Committee published its report.
Application by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Improper conduct or practice as advocate and solicitor
    • Outcome: The court found that the solicitors concerned had not been guilty of any breach of r 5(c) of the Rules or para 2.3 of the Practice Directions as alleged.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
    • Outcome: The court found that the solicitors concerned had not been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor as alleged.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. No remedies sought

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
para 2.3 of the Practice Directions of the Council dated 20 May 1996

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed)Singapore
s 5(c) Rules regulating the Practice and Etiquette of the Singapore BarSingapore
s 83 Legal Profession ActSingapore
s 33(3)Singapore
s 79Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Professional conduct
  • Touting
  • Panel of solicitors
  • Improper conduct
  • Misconduct unbefitting
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Practice Directions
  • Rules Regulating the Practice and Etiquette of the Singapore Bar

15.2 Keywords

  • Law Society
  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Professional Conduct
  • Touting
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Singapore
  • Solicitor
  • Advocate

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility90
Legal Profession Act90
Professional conduct70
Commercial Disputes20

16. Subjects

  • Professional Responsibility
  • Legal Ethics