Lee Wei Ling v Law Society: Disciplinary Procedures & Professional Conduct

Dr. Lee Wei Ling and Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, the executors of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's estate, applied to the High Court of Singapore for an order directing the Law Society of Singapore to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal to formally investigate Ms. Kwa Kim Li's conduct regarding complaints related to the handling of Mr. Lee's wills. The High Court, presided over by Justice Valerie Thean, granted the application in part, directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to the first and fourth complaints.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application granted in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered a complaint against Ms. Kwa Kim Li regarding professional conduct and disciplinary procedures, directing the Law Society to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal.

1.7 Decision Date

20 April 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Law Society of Singapore	Defendant	Statutory Board	Application granted in part	Partial	P Padman of KSCGP Juris LLP
Lee Hsien Yang	Plaintiff	Individual	Application granted in part	Partial	Abraham Vergis SC of Providence Law Asia LLC Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif of Providence Law Asia LLC
Lee Wei Ling	Plaintiff	Individual	Application granted in part	Partial	Abraham Vergis SC of Providence Law Asia LLC Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif of Providence Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
P Padman	KSCGP Juris LLP
Abraham Vergis SC	Providence Law Asia LLC
Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif	Providence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

Ms. Kwa assisted Mr. Lee with drafting six wills between 20 August 2011 and 2 November 2012.
The executors of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's estate filed a complaint against Ms. Kwa with the Law Society.
The complaint included allegations that Ms. Kwa failed to follow Mr. Lee's instructions to destroy superseded wills.
The complaint included allegations that Ms. Kwa breached privilege and duties of confidentiality.
The complaint included allegations that Ms. Kwa failed to keep proper records.
The complaint included allegations that Ms. Kwa gave false and misleading information to the executors.
The Council of the Law Society determined that a formal investigation was necessary only for the breach of confidentiality complaint.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Wei Ling and another v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 916 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 87

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-08-20	First Will executed
2011-12-21	Second Will executed
2012-09-06	Third Will executed
2012-09-20	Fourth Will executed
2012-10-04	Fifth Will executed
2012-11-02	Sixth Will executed
2013-12-17	Final Will executed
2015-03-23	Mr. Lee Kuan Yew passed away
2015-06-04	Ms. Kwa sent email regarding wills
2015-06-22	Ms. Kwa sent another email regarding wills
2019-02-25	Executors requested documents from Ms. Kwa
2019-09-05	Complaint filed with Law Society
2020-05-08	First Inquiry Committee Report issued
2020-07-03	Council posed queries on complaints
2020-08-03	Second Inquiry Committee Report issued
2020-09-07	Law Society informed executors of findings
2020-09-21	Application filed by executors
2021-02-01	Hearing commenced
2021-04-21	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Failure to follow instructions of client
- Outcome: The court directed the Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate this complaint.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to destroy superseded wills
Breach of confidentiality
- Outcome: A Disciplinary Tribunal will be appointed to investigate this complaint.
- Category: Substantive
Failure to keep proper records
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to direct the Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate this complaint.
- Category: Substantive
Providing false and misleading information
- Outcome: The court directed the Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate this complaint.
- Category: Substantive
Interpretation of Legal Profession Act
- Outcome: The court held that the Council had an obligation to accept the IC’s recommendation in the First IC Report that there should be a formal investigation by a DT in respect of the First Complaint.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Council's power to refer matters back to Inquiry Committee
- Related Cases:
  - [2021] SGCA 1
  - [2016] 4 SLR 192
  - [2018] 3 SLR 837
  - [2001] 2 SLR(R) 556
  - [2012] 3 SLR 440
  - [2020] 5 SLR 1080
  - [2017] 2 SLR 850
  - [1987] 2 MLJ 21
  - [1983–1984] SLR(R) 596
  - [2020] SGHC 127
  - [2004] 4 SLR(R) 594
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477
  - [2010] 4 SLR 373
  - [2017] 4 SLR 1369
  - [2013] SGHC 5
  - [2011] 2 SLR 1279
  - [2021] 3 SLR 513

8. Remedies Sought

Order directing the Law Society to apply for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal

9. Cause of Actions

Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] SGCA 1	Singapore	Cited for the disciplinary framework under the Legal Profession Act.
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 192	Singapore	Cited for outlining the steps in the disciplinary process.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 837	Singapore	Cited for the duty of an Inquiry Committee to determine whether there is a prima facie case of an ethical breach.
Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 556	Singapore	Cited for the Inquiry Committee's role as a screening exercise.
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	High Court	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 440	Singapore	Cited for the meaning of 'prima facie case' in the context of disciplinary proceedings.
Re Parti Liyani	High Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 1080	Singapore	Cited for elaborating on the meaning of 'inherently incredible' evidence.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for the framework for interpreting statutes.
Re An Advocate and Solicitor	Unknown	Yes	[1987] 2 MLJ 21	Malaysia	Discussed the issue of the Council's power to review recommendations of the Inquiry Committee.
Law Society of Singapore v Chia Shih Ching James	High Court	Yes	[1983–1984] SLR(R) 596	Singapore	Recognized that the Council no longer possessed the power to review and disagree with a recommendation of the IC that there should be a formal investigation.
Tan Ng Kuang and another v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 127	Singapore	Cited regarding the role of the Disciplinary Tribunal as the fact-finding body.
Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm)	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 594	Singapore	Discussed the keeping of records as a matter of prudent practice.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang	High Court	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 477	Singapore	Dealt with the issue of keeping records.
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the importance of solicitors making contemporary written records when preparing wills.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 1369	Singapore	Clarifies that a lawyer can be deceiving or misleading by passive concealment of material facts, the presentation of half-truths, and the active articulation of untruths and/or misrepresentation of facts.
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 5	Singapore	The Court of 3 Judges, in finding Chiong guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor in relation to Law Society’s complaints of negligence, held at [25] that Chiong’s misconduct spoke of disorganisation or lack of care on the part of Chiong, rather than a deliberate act on her part to mislead the client.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1279	Singapore	Parties are at liberty to write in within two weeks if they require an order on costs or any consequential directions.
CBB v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2021] 3 SLR 513	Singapore	Parties are at liberty to write in within two weeks if they require an order on costs or any consequential directions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (GN No S 156/1998, 2010 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Disciplinary Tribunal
Inquiry Committee
Legal Profession Act
Professional Conduct
Breach of Confidentiality
False and Misleading Information
Failure to Keep Proper Records
Failure to Destroy Wills
Prima Facie Case
Executors
Wills
Council of the Law Society

15.2 Keywords

legal profession
disciplinary procedures
professional conduct
wills
law society
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings	95
Legal Profession Act	90
Professional Ethics	85
Professional Conduct Rules	80
Corporate Law	10
Wills and Probate	10

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Professional Responsibility
Disciplinary Proceedings