Boey v Law Society: Conflict of Interest & Professional Conduct Rules
Richard Boey Pang Sim applied to the High Court of Singapore under s 96 of the Legal Profession Act for an order directing the Law Society of Singapore to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal regarding his complaint against Mr. Jawharilal Balachandran. Boey alleged conflict of interest and unfair advantage. The High Court, presided over by Justice George Wei, dismissed the application, finding no merit in Boey's complaints and no related matters within the meaning of r 31(1) of the PCR.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Richard Boey's application against the Law Society was dismissed. The court found no conflict of interest or breach of professional conduct rules.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application dismissed | Won | |
| BOEY PANG SIM RICHARD | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Joseph Liow Wang Wu | Straits Law Practice LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Boey made a complaint to the Law Society against Mr. Balachandran.
- The complaint alleged conflict of interest, untrue statements, and unfair advantage.
- Mr. Balachandran represented Exceltec in a personal injury suit where Mr. Boey was a witness.
- Mr. Balachandran later represented Mr. Loi in a defamation suit brought by Mr. Boey.
- The Law Society dismissed Mr. Boey's complaints.
- Mr. Boey applied to the High Court to direct the Law Society to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal.
5. Formal Citations
- Boey Pang Sim Richard v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 527 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 302
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Incident occurred at Petro Centre. | |
| Personal Injury Suit brought against cleaners and MCST of Petro Centre. | |
| Defamation Suit brought by Mr. Boey against Mr. Loi. | |
| First application by Mr Boey against Mr Balachandran. | |
| First application summarily dismissed by Review Committee. | |
| Second application made by Mr Boey. | |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 came into force. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The court found that there was no conflict of interest because Mr. Boey was not a client or an 'informal client' of Mr. Balachandran, and the Personal Injury Suit and Defamation Suit were not related matters.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Acting against a former client
- Definition of 'related matter'
- Definition of 'persons involved in or associated with the client'
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Balachandran did not take unfair advantage of Mr. Boey in the course of preparing the AEIC.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Taking unfair advantage of a person
- Coercion to sign affidavit
8. Remedies Sought
- Order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal
9. Cause of Actions
- Application under s 96 of the Legal Profession Act
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 482 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the Committee to investigate complaints and consider whether there was a prima facie case for formal investigation. |
| Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited for analysis of the pre-1998 position regarding acting against a former client. |
| Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 186 | Singapore | Cited for the pre-1998 position on acting against a former client, focusing on confidential information. |
| Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of Accountants | High Court | Yes | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited for the pre-1998 position on acting against a former client, focusing on confidential information. |
| Alrich Development Pte Ltd v Rafiq Jumabhoy | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 38 | Singapore | Cited for the pre-1998 position on acting against a former client, focusing on confidential information. |
| Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) | House of Lords | Yes | [1999] 2 AC 222 | United Kingdom | Cited for the stricter UK position on acting against a former client, focusing on the risk of disclosure of confidential information. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401 | Singapore | Cited for the underlying rationale of Rule 31, which is to ensure that the trust between lawyer and client is not compromised. |
| Richard Hoare v Norhayati Binte Abdul Jali | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 58 | Singapore | Cited as the only local authority on point regarding the definition of 'persons who were involved in or associated with' a former client. |
| Almecon Industries Ltd v Nutron Manufacturing Ltd (FCA) | Canadian Federal Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] FCJ 1209 | Canada | Cited for the 'informal client' approach. |
| Stanley v Advertising Directory Solutions Inc | British Columbia Supreme Court | Yes | [2007] BCJ 1674 | Canada | Cited for the 'informal client' approach. |
| Gainers Inc v Peter H Pocklington | Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench | Yes | 21 Alta L R (3d) 363 | Canada | Cited for the 'informal client' approach. |
| In re a Firm of Solicitors | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1992] 1 QB 959 | England and Wales | Cited for the 'informal client' approach. |
| Tay Ang Choo Nancy v Yeo Chong Lin and another (Yeo Holdings Pte Ltd, miscellaneous party) | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited regarding treating a company as the alter ego of a party in matrimonial proceedings. |
| Grimwade v Meagher | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1995] 1 VR 446 | Australia | Cited for the public interest that a litigant should not be deprived of their choice of solicitors without good cause. |
| MacDonald Estate v Martin | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1991] 1 WWR 705 | Canada | Cited regarding the difficulty a lawyer faces in compartmentalizing their mind to screen out what has been gleaned from a client. |
| Lee Kam Sun v Ho Sau Lin & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 MLJ 509 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the proximity and relationship of partners and legal assistants in the same firm. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed) |
| r 31 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules |
| r 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 96 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 2 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 87 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 71 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 85(19)(a) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Legal Profession Act
- Law Society of Singapore
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Conflict of interest
- Professional Conduct Rules
- Inquiry Committee
- Review Committee
- Defamation Suit
- Personal Injury Suit
- AEIC
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession Act
- Law Society
- Conflict of Interest
- Professional Conduct
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Professional Conduct Rules | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Professional Ethics
- Conflict of Interest