Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang: Professional Misconduct and Conflict of Interest
In Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society for disciplinary action against Tan Phuay Khiang, an advocate and solicitor, for professional misconduct. The Law Society alleged that Tan acted in a conflict of interest and failed to properly advise his clients, Mr Peer Mohammed and Mdm Zeenath Beagum, in the sale of their flat. The court found Tan guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and ordered his suspension from practice for two years.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application granted; respondent suspended from practice for two years.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lawyer Tan Phuay Khiang faced disciplinary action for misconduct and conflict of interest while representing homeowners in a property sale. The court suspended him for two years.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Granted | Won | |
| Tan Phuay Khiang | Respondent | Individual | Suspended from practice for two years | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Samuel Chacko | LegisPoint LLC |
| Peter Wadeley | LegisPoint LLC |
| Chandra Mohan K Nair | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
4. Facts
- The respondent acted for homeowners in the sale of their flat.
- The respondent prepared a power of attorney for the homeowners.
- The respondent prepared a statutory declaration authorizing distribution of sale proceeds.
- The respondent had acted for some of the parties receiving proceeds previously.
- The respondent failed to disclose his prior relationships with other parties.
- The complainants had a rudimentary primary education.
- The complainants were referred to the respondent by a moneylender.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang, OS 2354/2006, SUM 331/2007, [2007] SGHC 83
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complainants signed a power of attorney prepared by the respondent. | |
| Complainants signed a warrant to act appointing the respondent’s firm to act for them in the sale of the Flat. | |
| Flat was sold for $258,000. | |
| Complainants and the respondent met and the complainants signed a statutory declaration. | |
| Complainants learnt from a newspaper article about a similar transaction involving DK and another lawyer. | |
| Complainants lodged a complaint with the Law Society. | |
| High Court granted the application and ordered the respondent to be suspended from practice for a period of two years. |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty to advance client's interests
- Failure to disclose conflict of interest
- Failure to properly advise client
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent had placed himself in a position of an actual or potential conflict of interest.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Acting for multiple parties with conflicting interests
- Failure to disclose prior relationships with other parties
- Subordination of client's interests to those of other parties
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension from Practice
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Responsibility
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re an Advocate and Solicitor | Unspecified | Yes | [1978-1979] SLR 240 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of adequate prior notice in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Re Seah Pong Tshai | Unspecified | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 399 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of adequate prior notice in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited to support the existence of a duty to furnish copies of documents upon request by a client. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing | Unspecified | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 165 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that gross or excessive delay can constitute conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham | Unspecified | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 684 | Singapore | Cited for the solicitor's obligation to release documents to a former client. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wong Kai Kit | Unspecified | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the failure to notify the solicitor of the matters referred to in the fifth charge was purely technical in nature. |
| Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | [1963] 3 All ER 413 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that details in a power of attorney lack the necessary quality of confidence as they constitute “public property” and “public knowledge”, and cannot be regarded as confidential. |
| Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim | Unspecified | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 594 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the failure to maintain attendance notes did not per se render him in breach of his professional duties to the complainants. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani | Unspecified | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that lawyers must convey what the precise legal situation is with limpid clarity, taking into consideration the fact that their clients may not always share the same language, intellectual or legal facility as them. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Vardan Vasantha Lakshmi | Unspecified | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 240 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a lawyer who merely takes cursory steps to explain the nature of the documents may be held liable for breach of his professional duties. |
| Bolton v Law Society | Unspecified | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 512 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey | Unspecified | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 361 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | Unspecified | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that three factors were relevant in a determination as to the appropriate penalty: (a) protection of the public; (b) the need to safeguard the collective interests and reputation of the legal profession as an honourable one; and (c) punishment of the offender. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting Fai | Unspecified | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that contributions to public service may be taken into account as a mitigating factor in appropriate cases. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 35 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that contributions to public service may be taken into account as a mitigating factor in appropriate cases. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | Unspecified | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mitigating factors are usually a less persuasive consideration in disciplinary proceedings in contrast to criminal cases, as show cause proceedings are primarily civil rather than punitive in nature. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen | Unspecified | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 234 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mitigating factors are usually a less persuasive consideration in disciplinary proceedings in contrast to criminal cases, as show cause proceedings are primarily civil rather than punitive in nature. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ganesan Krishnan | Unspecified | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 251 | Singapore | Cited as a reminder to the legal profession that the onus invariably rests on solicitors to ensure that they conscientiously and assiduously discharge their professional duties. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(h) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Professional Misconduct
- Conflict of Interest
- Power of Attorney
- Statutory Declaration
- Solicitor-Client Relationship
- Duty of Loyalty
- Referral
- Moneylender
- Disciplinary Proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Professional Misconduct
- Conflict of Interest
- Law Society
- Singapore
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Action
- Suspension
- Advocate
- Solicitor
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Professional conduct | 80 |
| Conflict of Interest | 75 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 70 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Conflict of Interest
- Disciplinary Proceedings