Go through sentence by sentence for the ethics exam.

There is likely an issue or a potential issue for every

sentence.
PART I. Regulation of the Legal Profession in Singapore
(1) THE IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEGAL
PRACTITIONERS AND LAW PRACTICES
A. Meaning of Ethics
• A subject which addresses moral issues (issues of right or wrong conduct) in a specific context.
• In our context: the ethics which govern the legal profession.
• Human nature interesting: need to impose standards on ourselves which we instinctively know to be right.
• Someone said:
o “Ethics and morals existed before religions and philosophies were invented to use and study ethics
and morals. No religion nor philosophy invented ethics, nor can any religion or philosophy lay
claim to being the source or measure of ethics.”
• Are Law and Ethics distinguishable?
o Courts have stressed different approaches to legal and ethical rules. (See later slides under .)

“The difference between a trade and a profession is that the trader frankly carries on his business primarily
for the sake of pecuniary profit while the members of a profession profess an art, their skill in which they no
doubt place at the public service for remuneration, adequate or inadequate, but which is truly an end in
itself.
The professional man finds his highest rewards in his sense of his mastery of his subject, in the absorbing
interest of the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and in the contribution which, by reason of his
attainments, he can make to the promotion of the general welfare.” (Lord MacMillan)
Is this still true ?

B. Role of Ethics in Legal Practice

• Need for rules of ethics: Why do lawyers need rules of ethics to govern their conduct? Are not contractual
obligations enough?
• Several reasons:
o Not simply a matter of private liability under contract: There must be public accountability.
o Responsibilities to Administration to Justice
o Need for a clear formulation of how a lawyer must conduct himself in different circumstances.
o Disciplinary proceedings depend on framing the right charge; ie, the rule which has been breached.
o Legislation officially communicates to all persons including the public that professional conduct is
properly regulated.
o Because of the lawyer’s public role. The contractual responsibilities are private in nature. Ie, the
importance of this role in society means that he must be accountable to the public if he fails to
comply (eg through the disciplinary process). If we just left it to contract, lawyers would only have to
face private legal action by their clients. And clients do not usually sue their lawyers. Also the lawyer
owes his responsibilities to his client (as mentioned in the previous slide) pursuant to his duties to
the administration of justice. Ie, Administration of justice requires lawyer to be competent,
dedicated, honest. Public duty because how the lawyer conducts himself with his client affects the

1
 measure of justice and the standing of the legal profession. If lawyers did not abide by these duties,
they would soon become redundant and Singapore would have a lawyerless society. (Some may
welcome that. [Henry VI, Pt 2 (Let’s kill all the lawyers).]
o Lawyers have responsibilities to the administration of justice which impinge upon their duties to their
clients. Eg, commitment: failing to disclose an adverse document as a matter of commitment to the
client is wrong because of lawyer’s duty to the administation of justice.
o Ethics rules are supposed to clearly formulate how the lawyer is to conduct himself in different
circumstances. Must have clarity in the form of codes. Eg, LP(PC)R.

Critical principles
o LPA, ss 82(1), 83(2)(h) and Legal Profession (Prof. Conduct) Rules 2015 (‘LP(PC)R’), r 4(a)-(h).
o “Any person duly admitted as an advocate and solicitor and any legal officer shall be an officer of
the Supreme Court.” (LPA, s 82)
o LPA, s 83(2): An AS may be struck off, suspended or censured on proof that he:

(h) has been guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of
the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession.

CORE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE WHOLE OF THE PCR

Core principles: RULE 4 of PCR 2015
a. A legal practitioner has a paramount duty to the court, which takes precedence over the legal practitioner’s duty
to the legal practitioner’s client.
b. A legal practitioner’s duty to the legal practitioner’s client is subject only to the legal practitioner’s duty to the
court, and must at all times be fulfilled in a manner that upholds the standing and integrity of the Singapore legal
system and the legal profession in Singapore.
c. A legal practitioner has a duty to discharge honourably and with integrity all of the legal practitioner’s
responsibilities to any tribunal before which the legal practitioner appears, the legal practitioner’s clients, the
public and other members of the legal profession.
d. A legal practitioner must uphold the laws of Singapore in the legal practitioner’s practice.
e. A legal practitioner must facilitate the access of members of the public to justice.
f. A legal practitioner must be fair and courteous towards every person in respect of the legal practitioner’s
professional conduct.
g. A legal practitioner must ensure that the legal practitioner’s professional conduct is always consistent with the
values of the legal profession in each jurisdiction in which the legal practitioner is qualified to practise law and,
when giving advice in any other jurisdiction, the values of the legal profession in that other jurisdiction.
h. A legal practitioner must keep up to date with all pertinent developments in the law in the legal practitioner’s
area of practice.

Examples of rules in respective spheres of responsibility

Responsibilities to client
o Rule 5: General duties (eg, diligence, competence, loyalty, client care)
o Rule 6: Confidentiality
o Rules 16-26: Various aspects of relationship (eg, fees, money, conflict of interests, prohibited
arrangements).

Responsibilities to court
o Rules 9-15
o Conduct of proceedings, responsibility for client’s conduct, conflict of interest, dealing witnesses,
respect for the court and other responsibilities

Lawyer’s mutual responsibilities
o Rules 9-15
o Conduct of proceedings, responsibility for client’s conduct, conflict of interest, dealing witnesses,

2
 respect for the court and other responsibilities
o Not simply a matter of being nice to the other lawyer. Lawyer’s duties to each other are also for
benefit of their respective clients. Ie, cooperation between lawyers is necessary to effective legal
practice.
o Eg, if lawyers are fighting with each other, they will forget about their client’s interests. Eg, litigation
becomes a personal battle.
o Some rules are pure courtesy: eg, r 70, which requires notice. The rule does not apply if defendant is
not represented. Therefore, rule not concerned so much with client’s interests.

Responsibilities to public
o Rule 8
o Lawyer’s conduct towards “other persons”
o Must not take unfair advantage of any person
o Must decline to act for person if his/her interests are adverse (potentially adverse) to lawyer’s client.
o Must not act improperly towards any person.
o Responsibilities to opposing unrepresented party
o Responsibilities when writing letters of demand.
o Must not improperly threaten anyone.
o Other responsibilities.

Other responsibilities
o Rule 32: Duty of supervision over staff of law practice
o Rules 33 & 34: Descriptions and Executive appointments
o Rules 35 & 36: Management and operation of law practice.
o Rules 37-49: Touting and Publicity
o Formerly in the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules.

C. Legal Infrastructure
Legal Profession Act
• Singapore Institute of Legal Education (Pt II)
• Admission to the profession (Pt IIA)
• Law Society (Pt V)
• Professional Practice, Conduct & Discipline (Pt VI)
• Disciplinary proceedings (Pt VII)
• Remuneration (Pt VIII)
• Recovery and taxation of Costs (Pt IX)
• Law Practice Entities (Pt IXA)
Brief overview of Conduct and Discipline
• Practising lawyers: s 82
• Non-practising advocates and solicitors and legal officers: s 82A(2)
• Possible consequences of misconduct for practising lawyer (s 83(1)):
(a) Struck off the roll
(b) Suspended from practice (period not exceeding 5 years)
(c) Penalty (nor more than $100,000)
(d) Censure
(e) Fines can be added on top of censure or suspension
• Disciplinary procedure and related provisions (ss 84-106)

“DUE CAUSE” WHICH MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS:

s. 83(2) of LPA
(a) has been convicted of a criminal offence, implying a defect of character which makes him unfit for his
profession;
(b) has been guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty or

3
 guilty of such a breach of any off the following [rules] as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an
advocate and solicitor;
(c) has been adjudicated bankrupt and has been guilty of any of the acts or omissions mentioned in
section 124(5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k), (l) or (m) of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap. 20);
(d) (GIVEN GRATIFICATION (out of fees meant for his services) TO SECURE LEGAL BUSINESS)has tendered or
given or consented to retention, out of any fee payable to him for his services, of any gratification for having
procured the employment in any legal business of himself, of any other advocate and solicitor [or foreign
lawyer].
(e) (GOTTEN BUSINESS BY GIVING KICKBACKS) has, directly or indirectly, procured or attempted to procure the
employment of himself or any advocate and solicitor [or foreign lawyer] through or by the instruction of any
person to whom any remuneration for obtaining such employment has been given by him or agreed or
promised to be so given;
(f) (ACCEPTED BUSINESS THROUGH A TOUT) has accepted employment in any legal business through a person
who has been proclaimed a tout under any written law relating thereto;
(g) [Deleted]
(h) has been guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court
or as a member of an honourable profession;
(i) carries on by himself or any person in his employment any trade, business or calling that detracts from the
profession of law or is in any way incompatible with it, or is employed in any such trade, business or calling;
(j) has contravened any of the provisions of this Act in relation thereto if such contravention warrants
disciplinary action; or
(k) (DISCIPLINED IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION) has been disbarred, struck off, suspended, ordered to pay a
penalty, or censured or reprimanded in his capacity as a legal practitioner by whatever name called in any
other jurisdiction.

Sources of law
• Legal profession Act.
• Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
• Variety of other items of subsidiary legislation (eg, Solicitors’ Accounts Rules and Trust account rules;
Inadequate Professional Services (Complaint Enquiry) Rules.
• Professional Conduct Council (“PCC”) may make rules, issue practice directions, guidance notes and rulings (s
71(2) ad (6) of LPA).
• Law Society Council may make rules (s 59(1)(a)), issue practice directions, guidance notes and rulings (but
must consult with PCC first: (s 59(3) of LPA).
• Rules made by PCC prevail over rules made by Law Society if there is any inconsistency (s 71(7)).
• Rules made by PCC prevail over practice directions, guidance notes and rulings if there is any inconsistency (s
71(7))
• PCC’s practice directions, guidance notes and rulings prevail over those of the Law Society Council if there is
any inconsistency (s 71(8))
• Current Law Society Practice Directions 2013 continue to be in force until they are revoked (s 71(9)).

D. Scope of Application of LP(PC)R 2015

RULE 3 governs application to various sectors of Legal Profession including foreign lawyers and entities.
• Part 2, which concerns the lawyer's relationship with the client (Division 1), the relationship between lawyers
(Division 2) and the lawyer's responsibilities to all persons in the course of his work (Division 3), apply to
every lawyer who holds a practising certificate or who is registered under s 36F of the Legal Profession Act
(Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) ('the LPA') (which concerns lawyers who practise law in a Joint Law Venture or
foreign law practice), lawyers admitted on an ad hoc basis under s 15 of the LPA and every 'regulated
foreign lawyer'. (For the definition of these terms, see s 2(1) of the LPA and r 2(1) of the PCR.)
• Part 3 concerns:
• conduct in the course of court proceedings (Division 1),

4
 • the lawyer's relationship with the client (Division 2),
• the relationship between lawyers (Division 3),
• supervision over the staff of the law practice (Division 4) and
• descriptions and executive appointments (Division 5).
Some of these categories overlap with those in Part 2 because of the specific application of the
divisions of Part 3 to categories of foreign lawyers.
• Division 1 of Part 3 applies to all lawyers who hold a practising certificate and lawyers admitted on
an ad hoc basis under s 15 of the LPA (r 3(3) of the PCR).
• With regard to proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court ('SICC'),
Division 1 of Part 3 applies to all lawyers who hold a practising certificate, lawyers admitted
on an ad hoc basis under s 15 of the LPA and regulated foreign lawyers who are registered
under s 36P of the LPA (concerning their entitlement to conduct cases in the SICC) (r 3(2) of
the PCR).
• Divisions 2 to 5 of Part 3 apply to lawyers who hold a practising certificate or who are registered
under s 36F of the Legal Profession Act (which concerns lawyers who practise law in a Joint Law
Venture or foreign law practice), lawyers admitted on an ad hoc basis under s 15 of the LPA and
foreign lawyers registered under s 36B of the LPA (this provision concerns foreign lawyers who are
entitled to practise Singapore law and foreign law in Singapore) (see r 3(4) of the PCR).
• It is also provided that Division 2 of Part 3 applies to every Singapore law practice and to
every Joint Law Venture, Formal Law Alliance, Qualifying Foreign Law Practice, and licensed
foreign law practice in connection with the practice of Singapore law. (For the definition of
these terms, see s 2(1) of the LPA and r 2(1) of the PCR.)
• Part 4, which relates to the management and operation of law practices, applies to every law practice (see r
3(6) of the PCR).
• Part 5 contains the rules governing touting and publicity. These rules apply to all lawyers who hold a
practising certificate or who are registered under s 36F of the Legal Profession Act (see above), lawyers
admitted on an ad hoc basis under s 15 of the LPA, foreign lawyers registered under s 36B of the LPA (see
above), every Singapore law practice, every Joint Law Venture, Formal Law Alliance, Qualifying Foreign Law
Practice, and licensed foreign law practice in connection with its practice of Singapore law (see r 3(7) of the
PCR). (For the definition of these terms, see s 2(1) of the LPA and r 2(1) of the PCR.)

E. Judicial Expectations: The Moral Compass or Spirit of Ethics

How these rules are to be applied

Rules of ethics not to be approached in the same way as ordinary legislation
• EXAMPLES:
• General legislation: A&S may offer an interpretation which is most favourable to the client
irrespective of A&S’s personal opinion.
• Ethics rules: Not to be construed for purpose of justifying planned course of action or to minimise
exposure to professional liability.
• Rules of ethics must be construed in accordance with the core principles in r 4(a)-(h) and the specific
principles governing each Part or Rule of the PCR.

Spirit of the rule

Two point enquiry:
• (1) Is what I propose to do befitting my position as an officer of the Supreme Court and as a member of an
honourable profession? (see s 83(2)(h) of LPA).
• (2) What does the rule require me to do or not do in the light of this perspective?
• Eg: Rule 5(2)(e): Lawyer must ‘keep the client reasonably informed of the progress of the client’s
matter’.

5
 • Letter of the rule: Only need to communicate developments
• Spirit of the rule (applying the two-point enquiry): I am required not only to inform client of developments. I
must also act reasonably in answering any questions or in dealing with any concerns he has concerning the
progress of the case.

Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934, at para 84

“The rules of ethics … should not be perceived as an external and inconvenient imposition of values on
the legal profession but rather as an embodiment of the moral compass and aspirations of the
profession. … ethical rules only delineate minimal standards and duties which solicitors must observe.
There is much left unsaid that must be implicitly understood and observed with intelligent flexibility.”
Law Soc of S’pore v Tan Phuay Khiang [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477, at [100]

“It is also axiomatic that it is the spirit and intent, rather than just the plain letter, of the professional
ethical rules that breathe life and legitimacy into the standards that are relevant in assessing whether a
lawyer has discharged his professional obligations.”
o Tan Phuay Khiang: Lawyer involved in a conveyancing transaction. Circumstances indicated a
plan of action among various parties. Clients (H and W) introduced to loan company. Loan
Company arranged for them to be taken to the Lawyer’s officer Clients accompanied there by
property agent. Lawyer gave clients a power of attorney to sign although they did not know who
the attorney was. P/A given to property agent without couple’s authority. Couple also requested
to sign statutory declaration concerning payments to be made to these various parties.
o HC: “an intricate web of relationships existed between almost all the payees named in the
statutory declaration”
o Lawyer argued: He did not breach any particular rule. Just a convenient arrangement. Suspended
for 2 years.
Law Soc of S’pore v Tan Phuay Khiang [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477, at [120]

Ethical codes … must be religiously observed and adhered to ... However, it must also be stressed that a
rigid and formalistic adherence to the codes of practice without a proper appreciation of their spirit,
purport and intent may from time to time lead to ethical blindness.”
Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308, [81] & [82]:
• Lawyer acted in an estate matter. Officially retained by X on his own behalf. Estate involved a number of
other beneficiaries related to X. Lawyer advised these other beneficiaries to accept X as their representative
and gave other advice in the interest of X but not necessarily in interest of other beneficiaries. HC: Implied
retainer arose between Lawyer and other beneficiaries. Duties owed to them. Lawyer had acted improperly
by disregarding and jeopardising their interests. ALTHOUGH NO OFFICIAL RETAINER BETWEEN LAWYER AND
OTHER BENEFICIARIES, THE SPIRIT OF THE RULES IMPOSED A DUTY ON HIM TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

“… is a solicitor’s professionalism owed only to those who have entered into a retainer with him or her? Is
the legal profession a place where only economic pragmatism holds sway? This surely cannot be the
case.” [81]

“… this case was not merely about the legal rules; it was also about legal ethics…” [82]’

[Also see other citations at end of page 1 of Syllabus.]

PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS FOR ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS

• Applicability of double jeopardy.
o Harry Lee Wee v Law Society of Singapore (1985)

HELD: Unnecessary duplication of proceedings is an abuse of process that the court has an
inherent jurisdiction to restrain.
• Note: Cases where offence is related to fraud and dishonesty.
o s 94A(1), LPA: Where the advocate and solicitor has been convicted an offence with fraud and
dishonesty, the Law Society should apply straightaway for an order that the lawyer show cause.

6
STAGES IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

[1] COMPLAINT/INFORMATION
• Complaint sent to the Law Society which satisfies all the requirements of s 85(1), LPA must be sent to the
Chairman of the Inquiry Panel upon receipt.
o Complaint must be an accusation of a lawyer’s misconduct – a mere civil dispute without
allegation of misconduct does not constitute “complaint” under s 85(1), LPA (Re Cashin Howard
(1989)).
o Complaint must be in writing in English (s 85(1)(a), LPA), include a statement as to whether as to
whether complainant knows of any other complaint (s 85(1)(b), LPA) and be supported by a
statutory declaration s 85(1)(c), LPA.
o Complaint must be of a lawyer’s misconduct that occurred not more than 6 years ago.
• Council, a Judge of the Supreme Court, or the Attorney-General may also, on their own motion, refer any
information touching upon a lawyer’s misconduct.

[2] INQUIRY PANEL

• Role and function of the Inquiry Panel.
o A statutory body appointed by the Chief Justice to enable Inquiry Committees to be constituted.
• Composition of the Inquiry Panel.
o s 84(1), LPA: Comprises of advocates and solicitors (whether in practice or not) and lay persons.
o s 84(2), LPA: Lawyer is eligible to be appointed if he has not less than 7 years’ standing.
o s 84(3), LPA: Members are appointed by the Chief Justice for a 2 year term, and shall be eligible for
reappointment.
o s 84(5), LPA: Chairman is appointed from the members who are of not less than 12 years’ standing.
• Chairman of the Inquiry Panel shall constitute a Review Committee.

[3] REVIEW COMMITTEE

• Composition of the Review Committee.
o s 85(6), LPA: Review Committee comprises of:

[1] A chairman who is a member of the Inquiry Panel and is a lawyer of not less than 12
years’ standing; and

[2] A Legal Service Officer of not less than 10 years’ experience.
• s 85(6), LPA: Review Committee shall start review within 2 weeks of its constitution.
o s 85(7), LPA: Review Committee may require the complainant or the lawyer involved to answer
any inquiry or furnish any relevant records.
• s 85(8), LPA: Review Committee shall complete review within 4 weeks of its constitution, and shall either:
o [1] Direct the Council to dismiss the matter if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived,
or lacking in substance.

Must give reasons for dismissal.

Note: Under s 85(21), LPA, it is an offence to make a complaint when one knows it is false.
o [2] Refer the matter back to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel, who shall constitute an Inquiry
Committee to inquire into the complaint.
• If Review Committee cannot meet the deadline, it must apply to Chairman of the Inquiry Panel for
extension.

[4] COUNCIL
• Council must then give effect to decision of the Review Committee.
• Council must write to the complainant and lawyer within 7 days after receiving the Review Committee’s
report if the complaint is dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance.

7
[5] INQUIRY COMMITTEE
• Role and function of the Inquiry Committee.
o Merely to investigate the complaint, consider whether there is a prima facie case for a formal
investigation, but does not have to make any conclusion on a misconduct/offence (Whitehouse
Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore (1994)).
• Composition of the Inquiry Committee.
o s 85(10), LPA: Inquiry Committee comprises of (all must be present to constitute a quorum (s
85(15), LPA):

[1] A chairman who is a member of the Inquiry Panel is a lawyer of not less than 12 years’
standing;

[2] A member of the Inquiry Panel who is a lawyer;

[3] A member of the Inquiry Panel who is a lay person; and

[4] A Legal Service Officer of not less than 10 years’ experience.
o s 85(14), LPA: Chairman will have the casting vote.
• s 86(1), LPA: Inquiry Committee shall start inquiry within 2 weeks of its constitution.
• s 86(10), LPA: Even if complainant withdraws the complaint, the Council may still refer the complaint to
the Inquiry Committee/direct the Inquiry Committee to continue the inquiry.
• Rules of natural justice and fairness.
o Request for information – it may be unfair for lawyer to be adjudged on an issue in which a
material witness had given a private statement to the adjudicating tribunal without the lawyer’s
knowledge (Re Low Fook Cheng Patricia (1999)).
o Complainant has no right to be heard (Yusuf Jumabhoy v Law Society of Singapore (1988), Seet
Melvin v Law Society of Singapore (1995), and Tan Yeow Khoon v Law Society of Singapore (2001)).
• Notice may be issued to the lawyer under s 86(6), LPA, inviting him to explain his conduct (if necessary).
o Lawyer can choose to give explanation in writing, but usually wants to be heard as well.
o Failure to give notice will nullify the inquiry proceedings, but not the subsequent proceedings
(Ratnam v Law Society of Singapore (1974)).
• Report of the Inquiry Committee.
o Both the complainant and lawyer are entitled to a copy despite confidentiality in s 66, LPA.
o s 86(1), LPA: Report is due not later than 2 months after constitution (if notice is not given), or 3
months/2 weeks from the last Inquiry Committee meeting (whichever is earlier) in any other
situation.

s 86(2), LPA: If Inquiry Committee cannot meet deadline, it must apply to Chairman of the
Inquiry Panel for extension – but no extension after expiry of 2 months after constitution
(s 86(4), LPA).
o Report to the Council can recommend either:

[1] Formal investigation by the Disciplinary Tribunal – the Council must accept this and
apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal; or

[2] No cause of sufficient gravity for formal investigation and complaint be dismissed.

[3] No cause of sufficient gravity for formal investigation, but warning/reprimand/penalty
required – penalty must be less than $10,000.

[4] Refer matter back to the Inquiry Committee for further reconsideration/further report.

[6] COUNCIL
• s 87(1), LPA: Council will then make such determination.
o Notification of determination.

s 87(4), LPA: Council must inform the lawyer and the complainant the manner in which it
has determined the complaint within 14 days of such determination.
• If determination is that formal investigation is unnecessary, must furnish reasons
in writing if the complainant requests.

8
 o s 89, LPA: If prosecuting, Council must write to the Chief Justice requesting appointment of
Disciplinary Tribunal within 4 weeks of determination, and must prepare statement of case and
charges.
• Dissatisfied complainant.
o s 96, LPA: If a person is dissatisfied with the determination of the Council, he must apply to a judge
by originating summons within 14 days of being notified of the determination.

s 96(4), LPA: The judge may affirm the Council’s determination, or direct the Law Society
to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal.

[7] DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

• Role and function of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
o A judicial body, and proceedings before a Disciplinary Tribunal are quasi-criminal in nature.
o Not the ultimate disciplinary tribunal in most serious cases, but serves as a “filter” of sorts,
ensuring that only the most serious complaints are referred to the Court of Three Judges (Law
Society of Singapore v Jasmine Gowrimani d/o Daniel (2010)).
• Composition of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
o s 90(1), LPA: Disciplinary Tribunal comprises of:

[1] A president who is a lawyer and a Senior Counsel, or who has any time held office as a
Judge or a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court.

[2] A lawyer of not less than 12 years’ standing.
• Rules of natural justice and fairness.
o Rule against apparent bias – Disciplinary Tribunal must maintain the highest standard of conduct in
the exercise of its function, and must approach the issues with an open and impartial mind
because it is an adversarial (and not inquisitorial) process (Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni
(2007), Re Singh Kalpanath (1992)).
• s 93, LPA: 3 possible determinations by the Disciplinary Tribunal.
o [1] No cause of sufficient gravity for formal investigation, and complaint be dismissed.
o [2] No cause of sufficient gravity for formal investigation, but warning/reprimand/penalty required
– penalty must be less than $20,000.
o [3] Cause of sufficient gravity.

s 94(1), LPA: Law Society must apply within 1 month for an order that the lawyer show
cause why he shouldn’t be struck off the roll, suspended, ordered to pay a penalty,
censured, etc.
• Application will then be heard before the Court of Three Judges.

s 94(4), LPA: Council shall inform the lawyer and the complainant the determination of the
Disciplinary Tribunal within 14 days of receiving the report by the Disciplinary Tribunal.
• Dissatisfied parties – can apply for judicial review.
o Before the 2008 amendments to the LPA, findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal
could be subject to judicial review notwithstanding that the lawyer might have to show cause
before the Court of Three Judges.
o After the 2008 amendments to the LPA, judicial review is deferred until after the findings and
determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal is made.

If show cause proceeding is not necessary, s 97(1), LPA applies – application for judicial
review within 14 days of being notified of determination, and judicial review is heard by a
single Judge.

If show cause proceeding is ordered, s 98, LPA applies and judicial review is consolidated
with the show case proceedings, and heard by the Court of Three Judges (Mohd Sadique
bin Ibrahim Marican v Law Society of Singapore (2010)).

[8] COURT OF THREE JUDGES

• Role and function of the Court of Three Judges.

9
 o s 98(1), LPA: Application by the Law Society for the lawyer to be struck off the roll, suspended,
ordered to pay a penalty, censured, etc. will be heard by the Court of Three Judges.

Court of Three Judges can grant any of the orders in the Law Society’s application.
o s 98(8)(a), LPA: Court of Three Judges has full power to determine any questions necessary,
including questions as to the correctness/legality/propriety of the Disciplinary Tribunal’s
determination, or regularity as the Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings.
• S 98(8)(b), LPA: Court of Three Judges may also make an order setting aside the determination of the
Disciplinary Tribunal and:
o Direct the Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear and reinvestigate the complaint.
o Direct the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of another Disciplinary
Tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint.

LIABILITY ON DUE CAUSE (WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES?)

• s 83(1), LPA: A solicitor will be liable on due cause shown:
o (a) To be struck off the roll.
o (b) To be suspended from practice for a period not exceeding 5 years.
o (c) To pay a penalty of not more than $100,000.
o (d) To be censured.
o (e) To suffer punishment in (c) in addition to punishment in (b) or (d).
• Functions of disciplinary action under s 83, LPA.
o Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick (1999)

HELD: 3 functions:
• [1] Punishment of the errant solicitor.
• [2] Deterrence against similar defaults by other like-minded solicitors in future.
• [3] Protection of public confidence in the administration of justice – e.g. through
the public denunciation by the court (Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing
(2000)).
• Examples.
o Proven dishonesty, or falling below the required standards of integrity, probity and
trustworthiness.

Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel (1999)
• HELD: If there is proven dishonesty = struck off.
• If no dishonesty, but falling below the required standards of integrity, probity and
trustworthiness = struck off if the lapse indicate that he lacks the qualities of
character and trustworthiness necessary for a lawyer.
o Work pressure/stress.

Stress is part and parcel of the legal profession and cannot be an excuse for dishonesty
(Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Caleb Charles James (2004)).
o Overcharging.

Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul (2011)
• HELD: Court highlighted the concept of proportionate sanctions.
o Starting point should be a fine in the first instance, and not suspension of
errant lawyer from practice.
o If gross overcharging in question is redolent of cheating or deception,
penalty may be enhanced to suspension.
o In the most egregious cases where cheating is involved such as where
there are fabricated bills or invoices for work which has not in fact been
done, penalty may even be enhanced to striking the solicitor off the roll.
o Number of charges.

10

Number of charges against a lawyer is not determinative of punishment (Law Society of
Singapore v Michael Chong Wai Yen (2012)).

REINSTATEMENT TO THE ROLL

• s 102(1), LPA: Where the name of a solicitor has been removed from/struck off the roll, the court may at
any time order the Registrar to replace the name if it thinks fit:
o (a) Free from conditions; or
o (b) Subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit.
• s 102(2), LPA: Any application shall be made by originating summons supported by affidavit before the
Court of Three Judges, of whom the Chief Justice must be one.
• Relevant considerations.
o Note: Reinstatement is the exception rather than the rule.
o [1] Period of time elapsed between disbarment and reinstatement.

Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore (2001)
• HELD: No stipulated timeline, but generally a longer period than 5 years is
required (because the maximum period of suspension is 5 years) to reflect the
difference in gravity.
o [2] Extent of rehabilitation – show repentance, made restitution, obtained testimonials of good
character, etc.

Burden of proof is on the lawyer – to show that is reformed that that he can be relied
upon to discharge the professional duties of a lawyer with honour and integrity.
o [3] Public dimension – maintain public interest and confidence in the legal profession.

Necessary, but not sufficient, for the lawyer to show that he would not commit such
infraction again.

Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore (2009)
• HELD: This is the predominant concern in any reinstatement application – i.e. a
fully rehabilitated lawyer still has to overcome this.

Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore (2001)
• HELD: Nonetheless, there is also public interest in encouraging the rehabilitation
of those reformed, and the court plays a redemptive role.
o [4] Nature of the transgression which resulted in the striking off.
o Narinder Singh Kang (applicant) v Law Society of Singapore (2007)

HELD: Court will scrutinise application more strictly than for a new entrant with no adverse
record.
o Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam v Law Society of Singapore (2008)

HELD: Court must bear in mind that being struck off means there had necessarily been
extremely serious professional misconduct.
• Procedural issues.
o Template for reinstatement applications – see Guidance Note 2 of 2009 setting out the
information that ought to be disclosed in an affidavit in support of a reinstatement application.

E.g. any pending disciplinary proceedings, whether applicant is an undischarged bankrupt,
etc.

11
PART II. Relationship with the Client
(1) Formation of Retainer
When do you start and cease being a lawyer/client relationship?
PCA, PCR and common law govern the duties owed to someone who is a client.
• PCR 2015 r 4(b):
o “A legal practitioner’s duty to the legal practitioner’s client is subject only to the legal
practitioner’s duty to the court, and must at all times be fulfilled in a manner that upholds the
standing and integrity of the Singapore legal system and the legal profession in Singapore.”
• Under what circumstances can a person be considered to be a “client”?
• Section 2(1) Legal Profession Act
o "client" includes —
o in relation to contentious business,

any person who, as a principal or on behalf of another person, retains or employs, or is
about to retain or employ, a solicitor, and

any person who is or may be liable to pay a solicitor’s, a law corporation’s or a limited
liability law partnership’s costs; and
o in relation to non-contentious business,

any person who, as a principal or on behalf of another, or as a trustee, executor or
administrator, or in any other capacity, has power, express or implied, to retain or employ,
and retains or employs or is about to retain or employ, a solicitor, and

any person for the time being liable to pay a solicitor or a law corporation for his or its
services any costs;
You, as a lawyer, may begin to owe persons duties even BEFORE they formally engage you as a lawyer. For
example, walk-in members of the public consulting you on a second opinion, even if you don’t eventually engage
you, you still owe him a duty of reasonable care.

IMPLIED RETAINERS AND DUTIES TO THIRD PARTIES

Implied retainers may arise where, despite being no formal agreement for a lawyer to act for a client in a
particular matter, the parties’ conduct is such that the person may properly be regarded as a lawyer acting in
that person’s interests.
• LSS v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani [2006]
o Facts:

Lawyer instructed by a Rashid, who was one of a number of siblings. Father had died
intestate. Rashid was applying to be the sole administrator of his father’s estate.

The other beneficiaries did not appoint the lawyer specifically. But the lawyer met all of
them in the family, to help them in relation to the house.

Some of the other beneficiaries expressed concerns about this, and asked whether they
could appoint a co-administrator. Lawyer advised the other beneficiaries that Rashid, as
sole administrator, would not be able to deal with the property without their
authorisation. He also told them that they did not have to sign a document renouncing
their claim to be co-administrators. However, as it turned out, they did sign.

Issue: Did lawyer owe other beneficiaries to act in the beneficies’ best interests?

They appeared to be relying on the advice of Rashid. Court of 3 judges held: the lawyer
owed duties to the other beneficiaris BY HIS OWN CONDUCT, because an IMPLIED
RETAINER arose. The duties were as if they had formally engaged him.
o HELD:

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

12
 properly to be entreated to ALL the parties.

The implication has to be SO CLEAR that the solicitor OUGHT to have appreciated it.

Circumstances to be considered in making such an implication:
• Who’s paying the bill
• Who’s providing the instructions
• Whether contractual relationships existed between the parties in the past.
Implied retainer arose where a solicitor had signed off an official document (certificate of correctness) as
solicitors for the mortgagors
• Anwar Patrick Adrian v Ng Chong & Hue LLC [2014] 3 SLR 761 (SGCA)
o 58 From the perspective of the solicitor, Ng, a seasoned solicitor, must be taken to have known
of the importance of his signing the Certificate of Correctness for the purposes of the mortgage of
the properties held by the Appellants. From any objective standpoint, he must have thought that
he had the authority to act for the Appellants, and that he was their agent. In fact, he was their
solicitor for the mortgage; there is no other way of characterising it. He may, in his own mind, have
thought that he was their solicitor for the mortgage only because he was advising Agus on the
broader transaction, but that does not detract from the fact that he must have held the view that
he was officially the Appellants’ solicitor for the mortgage.
o 59 From the perspective of the clients, the Appellants would also have legitimately considered
Ng to be their solicitor. This is not premised solely on his signing off as their solicitor on the
Certificate of Correctness. More than that, they knew that he was involved in the execution of this
particular document; he was the only legally trained person on their side (ie, Agus and the
Appellants) involved in the execution and the other side had a solicitor representing them as well.
Indeed, this was a mortgage transaction that was part of a larger commercial transaction that
ostensibly had legal implications which therefore required legal expertise. Looked at in its totality,
the Appellants must have thought – or at any rate were entitled to think – that Ng was their
solicitor on record (which he was). He was the one who would help them through this transaction.

THIRD PARTIES
Aside from an implied retainer, duties of care under COMMON LAW may be held to be owed to third parties
who are NOT formally clients of the lawyer.
• AEL and others v Cheoh Yeoh & Associates LLC and another [2014] 3 SLR 1231 SGHC;
o Lawyer was instructed by clients to draft a will. However, as a result of the lawyer’s negligence, the
will was defective as it was only executed in front of 1 witness. As a result, when the client died,
his estate was distributed as if he died intestate.
o This resulted in various parties, including the client’s grandchildren, not being entitled to shares of
the estate as intended by the client.
o The SGHC had no difficulty in finding that the lawyers owed the numerous intended beneficiaries
duties of care under common law.
o Court ordered the lawyer to compensate the intended beneficiaries to the amount of $790,000,
which was what they would have been entitled to had the will been executed according to his
client’s intentions.
• Anwar Patrick Adrian v Ng Chong & Hue LLC [2014] 3 SLR 761
o Lawyer owed duties of care under CL and liable to compensate Pfs for loss even though not
formally engaged by the Pfs as their lawyer.
ACCEPTING INSTRUCTIONS
Extra caution to be exercised when client suffers from any mental infirmity e.g. when preparing a will and/or
witnessing execution of will
• Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline [2010] 4 SLR 373
o KEY CASE
o 60 In our view, this case demonstrates that solicitors who undertake the task of preparing wills

13
 and/or witnessing the execution of wills must take the necessary precautions or steps in order to
fulfil their duties to their clients. The precautions are not complicated nor are they time
consuming. In any case, as solicitors, they must do what is required, however complicated or
difficult the task may be. The central task is to ensure that the terms of the will reflect the wishes
of the testator. How this is done depends on the circumstances of each case. In every case, the
solicitor should be cautious about taking instructions from any person who is to be named as a
beneficiary in the will. If a testator is known to be suffering from any mental infirmity, a doctor
should be called to certify her mental capacity before she is allowed to sign the will to ensure
that such a testator fully understands the will. In the case of a person with mental infirmities like
Mdm Goh, it should have included attending on Mdm Goh personally to take instructions from
her, providing her with and explaining a draft of the will to her, and if there is any doubt as to her
mental capacity, to advise that a psychiatrist (or some other qualified medical practitioner) attend
on her to assess her mental capacity. Furthermore, the solicitor should ask the appropriate
questions to ascertain the testator’s capacity to understand the contents of the will. The testator
should be asked as simple a question as whether he or she is making a will for the first time or
whether he or she had made a will previously. In the latter case, the solicitor should ask whether
the testator knows that he or she is revoking the existing will. These questions may be formulaic,
but they are necessary to avoid cases such as this. Finally, as a matter of good professional
practice, if not professional prudence, the solicitor should make a contemporary written record of
his or her attendances on the testator so that he or she would be able to recall exactly what had
transpired during the meeting or meetings.
Translation must be competently done (if required), and must avoid being in position of conflict of interest.
Cases:
• Low Ah Cheow v Ng Hock Guan [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1079
• Soh Eng Beng v Soh Eng Koon [2010] SGHC 257

AUTHORITY TO ACT
Ensure you have authority
It is important to ensure that one does indeed have authority to act for a party in a particular matter, esp before
filing any notice of appointment of solicitors, or notice of change of solicitors informing the court that you are
now on record as the client’s solicitors.

Steps you should take include:

• Verifying identity of client (NRIC)
• Getting client to sign a Warrant to Act (which must be in writing)
• Having the terms in a Letter of Engagement
• Be sure who you are acting for- the company? The BoD? A member of the Board in his personal capacity?
If it’s one Director giving instructions, does he have the authority to give this instruction, or does it require
the whole board to approve? Can the Board even give instructions, for example, if it is deadlocked, it
cannot.
• Dicslosure of warrant to act to third party
o Order 64, rule 7 Rules of Court and Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd & Ors
[2005] 3 SLR(R) 184
o Council’s Ruling 1 of 1992: Request for Warrants to Act
Acting without authority
• Breach of warranty of authority  damages
• Liability for wasted costs
• Disciplinary action (suspension, struck off etc).

14
TERMINATING RETAINER
Under what circumstances can a client terminate the retainer or a solicitor withdraw from acting for the client?
What are a solicitor’s duties upon termination or withdrawal?
CLIENT side:
• Client is entitled at any time and for any reason to terminate the retainer and change lawyers.
LAWYER’S side:
• TWO grounds on which a lawyer MUST withdraw from representing a client, and SEVEN for which a
lawyer MAY withdraw.
o PCR 2015 rule 26(4)
o MUST WITHDRAW IF:

the legal practitioner is discharged from the engagement by the client; or

having come into possession of a document belonging to another party by any means
other than the normal and proper channels, and having read the document, the legal
practitioner would be embarrassed in the discharge of the legal practitioner’s duties by
the knowledge of the contents of the document.
o MAY WITHDRAW IF:

the legal practitioner gives reasonable notice of the withdrawal to the client;

the withdrawal will not cause any significant harm to the client’s interests, the client is
fully informed of the consequences of the withdrawal, and the client voluntarily assents to
the withdrawal;

the legal practitioner reasonably believes that continued engagement in the case or
matter is likely to have a serious adverse effect on the legal practitioner’s health;

the client —
i. fails to pay the legal practitioner’s invoice within the stipulated period; or
ii. otherwise breaches an agreement with the legal practitioner regarding —
A. fees or expenses to be paid by the client; or
B. the client’s conduct;

the client makes material misrepresentations about the facts of the case or matter to the
legal practitioner;

the withdrawal is necessary to avoid a contravention by the legal practitioner of —
i. the Act;
ii. these Rules or any other subsidiary legislation made under the Act;
iii. any practice directions, guidance notes and rulings issued under section 71(6) of
the Act;
iv. any practice directions, guidance notes and rulings (relating to professional
practice, etiquette, conduct and discipline) issued by the Council or the Society; or
v. if the legal practitioner is duly authorised or registered to practise law in any state
or territory other than Singapore, any practice directions, guidance notes and
rulings (relating to professional practice, etiquette, conduct and discipline) issued
by —
A. the foreign authority having the function conferred by law of authorising
or registering persons to practise law in that state or territory; or
B. any relevant professional body of that state or territory;

there is a serious loss of confidence between the legal practitioner and the client; or

any other good cause exists
o 26(6) Where a legal practitioner withdraws from representing a client in a case or matter, the
legal practitioner must —

take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to the client, including, where the
circumstances permit —
i. by giving reasonable notice of the withdrawal to the client;
ii. by giving the client a reasonable amount of time to engage another legal

15
 practitioner to take over the case or matter; and
iii. by cooperating with the client’s new legal practitioner; and

abide by the client’s decision on whether to appoint another legal practitioner, and who to
appoint, to take over the case or matter, if not completed.

(2) Honesty, Competence and Diligence (Rule 5 PCR)

LAWYER’S DUTY TO CLIENT
4 main responsibilities to clients: Honesty, competence, diligence and confidentiality.
Honesty, competence and diligence
5.
(1) The following principles guide the interpretation of this rule.
Principles
(a) The relationship between a legal practitioner and his or her client imports a duty to be honest in all dealings with
the client.
(b) A legal practitioner must have the requisite knowledge, skill and experience to provide competent advice and
representation to his or her client.
(c) A legal practitioner has a duty to be diligent in the advice and information given to his or her client, and in the
manner the legal practitioner represents the client.

(2) A legal practitioner must —

(a) be honest in all the legal practitioner’s dealings with his or her client;
(b) when advising the client, inform the client of all information known to the legal practitioner that may
reasonably affect the interests of the client in the matter, other than —
i. any information that the legal practitioner is precluded, by any overriding duty of
confidentiality, from disclosing to the client; and
ii. any information that the client has agreed in writing need not be disclosed to the client;
(c) act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to the client;
(d) ensure that the legal practitioner has the relevant knowledge, skills and attributes required for each
matter undertaken on behalf of the client, and apply the knowledge, skills and attributes in a manner
appropriate to that matter;
(e) keep the client reasonably informed of the progress of the client’s matter;
(f) where practicable, promptly respond to the client’s communications;
(g) keep appointments with the client;
(h) provide timely advice to the client;
(i) follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions that the client is competent to give;
(j) use all legal means to advance the client’s interests, to the extent that the legal practitioner may
reasonably be expected to do so; and
(k) keep proper contemporaneous records of all instructions received from, and all advice rendered to, the
client.

(3) The circumstances, nature and terms of engagement of a legal practitioner by his or her client are to be taken
into account when considering whether the legal practitioner has complied with paragraph (2).

(4) A legal practitioner must, as far as reasonably possible, continue to act for his or her client in the client’s best
interests, after the client’s ability to make any decision is impaired because of any mental disability or for any
other reason.

16
(5) When a legal practitioner is given instructions purportedly on behalf of his or her client, the legal practitioner
must —
(a) ensure that the person giving those instructions has the authority to give those instructions on behalf of
the client; or
(b) if there is no evidence of such authority, obtain the client’s confirmation of those instructions within a
reasonable time after receiving those instructions.

PCR 5(2)(a): HONESTY

The courts take the issue of dishonesty very seriously. In Ng Bock Hoh Dixon, the SGHC held that a lawyer may be
struck off if he merely was “shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and
trustworthiness” (need not have been dishonest per se), while in Ng Chee Sing, the purely dishonest acts of the
defendant caused him to be struck off DESPITE him being newly admitted to the bar, and the fact that his
dishonesty was in a personal and not entirely professional capacity.
• LSS v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2012] 1 SLR 348
o A lawyer was entrusted with USD100,000 for payment to another party on a contingent condition
happening. When this condition failed to materialize, and there was no need to pay it to the 3rd
party anymore, the client requested a refund. The lawyer refused, and even FALSIFIED documents
to lead the Council of Law Soc and his own accountant to believe that he had indeed channeled his
client’s money as per his client’s instructions. He even said he rendered a bill for professional
services for that amount.
o Multiple false statements to Law Soc, resulting in counts of GROSSLY IMPROPER CONDUCT
UNBEFITTING AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR. Result: Lawyer struck off.
o SGHC:

31 It is well established that if an advocate and solicitor is shown to be dishonest, he
will “almost invariably” be struck off the roll. However, dishonesty is not the only
situation which will warrant striking an advocate and solicitor off the roll; an advocate and
solicitor may be struck off even where dishonesty is not shown if he is “shown to have
fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness” (see
Bolton v Law Society)

33 It is beyond dispute that bills produced by advocates and solicitors are important
documents and it is vital to the proper maintenance of accounting records that they mean
what they say.
• LSS v Ng Chee Sing [2000] 1 SLR(R) 466
o Facts:

Respondent acted on a premeditated scheme for personal profit. The scheme involved
him causing 2 nominees to buy properties, and mortgage them to his clients, the
mortgagees (lenders).

He then earned commissions on loans extended to outside 3rd parties with monies from
the mortgage funds. He deliberately concealed this from the client. Ignored and delayed
responding to enquires as to why the mortgages were not registered. Hid the fact that he
had not even attempted to have the purchase of the properties completed
o SGHC:

Ng was guilty of grossly improper conduct. He was dishonorable to the respondent as a
man and to his profession.

Such misconduct was not confined to misconduct in his capacity as solicitor but also in his
conduct in his PERSONAL capacity as well.
o NOTE: Lawyer was a young fresh lawyer, only admitted to the bar for 1 year. But still struck off.
Not a mitigating factor because it involved purely dishonest acts.

17
PCR 5(2)(b): duty to provide all information that may reasonably affect the interests of
the client
• Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgam (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and
others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159
o Lawyers failed to provide the Pfs with enough information to make an informed decision about the
purchase of a shophouse.
o The property in question only had 17 out of 30 years remaining on the lease. The clients had
proceeded on the misperception held by the buyer that the property had 62 years of the lease
remaining.
o The nature of the tenancy was not explained by the lawyers to the client even though they had
known about it.
o The buyer was commercially experienced and had in fact dealings with 6 other shophouses, all of
which were transactions handled by the same lawyers.
o Held:

Even though lawyers were not expected to explain commercial and economic matters to
the client, and the client’s experience is a relevant factor, this consideration cannot be
taken too far.

There is a basic duty to advise the client what kind of transaction he was legally getting
into, and what would be the effect of the transaction.

Important to point out to him that he was getting 17 out of 30 year lease, and not 62
years.

It is not a defence to say that the lawyer did not breach his duty just because his client was
an experienced businessman.

the proper approach is to ask whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a duty to take
reasonable care in and about the handling the conveyancing transaction, and, if so,
whether the defendants had breached that duty by failing to inform and advice the
plaintiffs about the tenure & tenancy problems which the plaintiffs should have been
given in circumstances where any reasonable conveyancing solicitor in the defendants'
position would have given that information or advice.

PCR 5(2)(c): reasonable diligence in provision of services

• LSS v K Jayakumar Naidu [2012] 4 SLR 1232
o The brother of a temporarily handicapped person hired a lawyer hired a lawyer to execute a
power of attorney to allow him to help in the sale of a flat belonging to the handicapped brother.
After the power of attorney was granted, the flat was sold. Thereafter, a loan was granted to the
brother who was given the PoA, on the security of the sale proceeds of the flat.
o This came to the attention of other members of the handicapped Mr Hay’s family, who, through
another lawyer, warned the Dfs that Mr Hay did not know about the sale of the flat, and that the
brother who had obtained the PoA was known to have a gambling problem.
o The other lawyer told the Df lawyers that the loan was likely to be for his gambling debts. The
lawyers were asked to retain the loan disbursements in the interim while steps were taken to
protect the interests of the handicapped Mr Hay.
o The Df lawyers were unwilling to hold the money until the issue could be resolved, and did not
comply even when they were notified of the revocation of the PoA, and did not transfer, as
requested, the proceeds of the sale to another law firm for safekeeping.
o The gambler brother pressured the lawyer, who arranged for Mr Hay to be evaluated by another
psychiatrist, and exercised another LoA directing that the sales proceeds be paid to his bank
account. The lawyer allowed the brother to handle all these proceeds, which were eventually
misappropriated.
o Held:

18

Suspended for 3 months.

Solicitor’s duties to advance client’s interest with DILIGENCE and COMPETENCE: [1] the
extent of this duty depends on the precise identity, sophistication and circumstances of
the client: a vulnerable client, such as one who is mentally and/or physically
disadvantaged, uneducated or impecunious, may require comprehensive and
comprehensible advice for even the simplest of matters; in contrast, a client who is a
seasoned businessman or a corporate entity with an in-house risk management team may
be reasonably presumed to have greater situational awareness. In a similar vein, the
extent of the duty will also vary with the client’s apparent familiarity with a proposed
transaction.

While a solicitor did not need to approach every transaction with a suspicious mind, where
there was reason to be suspicious of possible risks, he is not entitled to be passive when
there are clear suspicions that your client is cheating. Furthermore, the responsibility of
ascertaining a client’s true intentions should not be delegated (note: in this case it was to a
psychiatrist).

79 It will be noted that the respondent has been measured against the standard of the
reasonably competent solicitor. (note: in this case the other solicitor was warning the Df
of the gambler brother).

PCR 5(2) (e), (f), (g), (h): Timely communications with client, tardiness.
• LSS v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5
• Facts:
o Df solicitor engaged to handle a divorce proceeding. From the time of engagement to termination,
the solicitor was completely incompetent, disorganized, and displayed a complete lack of care to
her client.
o Gave sweeping statements, statements that could not be backed up by law or common sense,
inappropriate advice that her client could get everything she wanted in the divorce when asked
about the impact of her husband’s intention to go overseas. Failed to explain the processes and
obstacles in the conduct of the divorce. Lengthy and unreasonable delay in the filing of divorce
papers. Misled the client to go to another firm, and consistently late in going to court.
o Made the problems even worse when she failed to inform the client that the husband had offered
to mediate and settle the matter, instead demanded that the husband file his defence.
o Suspended for 6 months

PCR 5(2)(k): keep contemporaneous records of all instructions received from and advice
rendered to client
Don’t need verbatim notes, but useful when challenged.

Lie Hendry Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm) [2004] 4 SLR(R) 594 at [36], [63] to [64]
o [63] The solicitor will have to satisfy the court that his recollection of events is case specific and
not a convenient reconstruction of events.

(3) Confidentiality
CONFIDENTIALITY PCR (2015) Rule 6
6.—(1) The following principle guides the interpretation of this rule.
Principle
A legal practitioner’s duty to act in the best interests of the legal practitioner’s client includes a responsibility to
maintain the confidentiality of any information which the legal practitioner acquires in the course of the legal

19
 practitioner’s professional work.
Specific duties
(2) Subject to paragraph (3) and any rules made under section 136, 150 or 166 of the Act, a legal practitioner must
not knowingly disclose any information which —
(a) is confidential to his or her client; and
(b) is acquired by the legal practitioner (whether from the client or from any other person) in the course of
the legal practitioner’s engagement.

5 exceptions to duty of confidentiality

(3) A legal practitioner may disclose any information referred to in paragraph (2), if —
(a) the client referred to in paragraph (2) authorises the disclosure;
(b) the legal practitioner is permitted or is required by law, by an order of court, or by a tribunal to make the
disclosure;
(c) the legal practitioner discloses the information in confidence, for the sole purpose of obtaining advice in
connection with the legal practitioner’s legal or ethical obligations;
(d) the legal practitioner discloses the information in confidence to a provider or broker of the legal
practitioner’s professional indemnity insurance, in connection with any claim or potential claim, or any
complaint or potential complaint, by any person against the legal practitioner; or
(e) the legal practitioner discloses the information for the sole purpose of responding to or defending any
charge or complaint, relating to the legal practitioner’s conduct or professional behaviour, brought against
the legal practitioner in court, before a Review Committee, an Inquiry Committee or a Disciplinary
Tribunal, before a complaints committee appointed under section 36S(5) of the Act, or before any relevant
professional disciplinary body of a state or territory (other than Singapore) in which the legal practitioner
is duly authorised or registered to practise law. “The following principle guides the interpretation of this
rule…a legal practitioner’s duty to act in the best interests of the legal practitioner’s client includes a
responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of any information which the legal practitioner acquires in the
course of the legal practitioner’s course of work.

CASES
Duty of confidentiality attaches only if the information is of a confidentiality nature

LSS v Ravi S/O Madasamy [2015] 3 SLR 1187 at [33]
o Respondent had emailed the press attaching letters from the State and Supreme Court registries,
which made known the dates of the hearings of the respondent’s clients.
o CJ Sundaresh Menon:

The mere act of disclosure is not sufficient of itself to constitute a breach of
confidentiality. Regard has to be had to the nature of the information disclosed. There can
only be a breach of confidentiality if the information was confidential in nature.

Held: Hearing dates were public information available from published hearing lists.
Therefore, no breach of confidentiality in revealing the scheduling of the client.
Importance of “privileged and confidential” disclaimer- mark your emails as such!

HT.S.R.L. v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] SGHC 15
o Shortly after the Pf commenced a suit against the Df, the Pf’s computers were hacked, and its
contents were relased on the internet, including privileged communications between HTSRL and
their solicitor.
o However, these emails contained provisios that this information was privileged information.
o The Df accessed these emails and relied on them to strike out the bulk of the Pf’s case.
o Held:

Regardless of whether or not the contents of the mails would prove fatal to the suit, the
obligation of confidentiality could still be imposed on the Df precisely due to the express
provisios marking the contents of the emails as confidential.

20
(4) CONFLICTS BETWEEN CLIENTS (Former clients and related
matters between two clients)
Conflicts of Interest
A. Conflict or potential conflict of interests of current client and former client
B. Conflict or potential conflict of interests between 2 or more clients

Professional conflict – not to act against former client (New PCR rule
21)
3 conditions where practitioner has to cease acting
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), a legal practitioner or law practice must decline to represent, or must
withdraw from representing, a client (called in this rule the current client) in a matter, if —
(a) the legal practitioner or the law practice holds confidential information relating to a former client (called
in this rule the former client) that is protected by rule 6;
(b) the current client has an interest that is, or may reasonably be expected to be, adverse to an interest of
the former client; and
(c) that information may reasonably be expected to be material to the representation of the current client in
that matter.

Exceptions:
(3) Paragraph (2) does not prevent a legal practitioner or law practice from acting, or continuing to act, for the
current client, subject to any conditions agreed between the legal practitioner or law practice and the former
client, if —

(a) the legal practitioner or law practice has adequately advised the former client to obtain independent legal
advice; and
(b) the former client gives the former client’s informed consent in writing to the legal practitioner or law
practice acting, or continuing to act, for the current client.

Further exceptions:
(4) Where the requirements in paragraph (3)(a) and (b) are not met despite reasonable efforts by the legal
practitioner or law practice to meet those requirements, paragraph (2) does not prevent the legal practitioner or
law practice from acting, or continuing to act, for the current client, if —

(a) there are adequate safeguards in place to protect the former client’s confidential information; and
(b) the legal practitioner or law practice has made reasonable efforts to notify the former client
i. of those safeguards; and
ii. that the legal practitioner or law practice will act, or continue to act, for the current client.
Compare with Former PCR Rule 31

Professional conflict – not to act against former client [Former PCR rule 31]
(1) An advocate and solicitor who has acted for a client in a matter shall not thereafter act against the client (or
against persons who were involved in or associated with the client in that matter) in the same or any related
matter.

21
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term “client” includes a client of the law practice of which the advocate
and solicitor is a partner, a director, an associate or an employee, whether or not he handles the client’s work.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall apply even where the advocate and solicitor concerned becomes a member of a different
law practice.
(4) Nothing herein shall preclude a law practice from acting against a party in a matter provided that —

(a) the law practice has not previously acted for the party (or for persons who were involved in or associated
with the party in that matter) in the same or any related matter; and
(b) any advocate and solicitor of the law practice who has previously acted for the party in the same or related
matter neither acts nor is involved in that matter or related matter in any way whatsoever and does not
otherwise disclose any confidential information relating to the matter or the party to any other member of
the law practice.”

Cases on the old PCR are still useful, cos they still give you an idea of what is “adverse interest against former
client” and “same or related matter”

SAME OR RELATED MATTER

R21 now states that you must be holding on to the confidential information. But the guiding principle behind
Vorobiev Nokolay v Lush John Frederick Peters (on what was a “related matter”) still stands. Ultimately, both rules
are meant to ensure that the larger public interest of a solicitor-client relationship of trust and public confidence
in the integrity of the legal profession.

Vorobiev Nikolay v. Lush John Frederick Peters [2010] SGHC 290

Facts: Df applied for an injunction to restrain the Pf’s lawyer on the grounds that the Pf’s lawyer had previously
acted for the Df in matters relating to the same company in dispute. Df said it was “same or related” proceedings.
The Pf’s position however was that under r31 (old rules) that the matter was only related if confidential info was
conveyed to that lawyer in the previous matter of the Df. The Pf claimed that he did not obtain any confi
information from their lawyer relating to the previous matter.

Held: Df’s application allowed.

• In determining whether two matters are related, confidential information is a useful but not conclusive
yardstick. Related if dealing with same matters which are subject matter of the current engagement.
• Ultimately, it is a substance over form approach
• Purpose of rule: “Larger public interest beyond the need to protect against the disclosure of confidential
information ie the solicitor-client relationship of trust and public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.”
• Also, factually, the case did indeed arise from the same subject matter.

Richard Hoare v Norhayati Binte Abdul Jali [2010] SGDC 58 (applied Lush John)
• On whether matters are related:
• “any two matters were clearly related if any information which a former client previously imparted in
confidence for the purpose of the earlier matter is relevant to the later matter”
• Quoted with approval r3.01 of UK Solicitor’s Code of Conduct – “a related matter will always include any
other matter which involves the same asset or liability”
• Cited Ethics Committee – “the law is concerned with the protection of information which (a) was originally
communicated in confidence, (b) at the date of the later proposed retainer is still confidential and may
reasonably be considered, remembered or capable, on the memory being triggered of being recalled and

22
 (c) relevant to the subject matter of the subsequent proposed retainer….”

ADVERSE INTEREST
R21(2)(b) states that there must be some adverse interest. In India International Insurance, the remedies of rule
31 LPA were denied because the court found that the interests of the Pf and Df were largely aligned.

India International Insurance Pte Ltd v Ho Chai Hong Joanne [2013] SGDC 193
• On alignment of interests between Pf and Df (as regards “adverse interests”):
• [57]: “First, it was not apparent to me why TLK would necessarily be acting against the interest of the
Defendant if it were to continue to assume conduct of the Third Party Suit upon the Plaintiff’s instructions.
With respect to the settlement of the Third Party Suit, the interests of the Plaintiff and Defendant were
largely aligned, in that both would have wanted to limit their liabilities to the third party. In any event,
even if the provisions of the LPA were triggered, this was, at best, a private matter between the Defendant
and her supposed ex-solicitors, and would (if at all) only attract remedies under the LPA. Rule 31(1) ought
not, in my opinion, have any bearing on the contractual rights and obligations between the Plaintiff and
the Defendant under the Policy.”

Professional conflict – conflict between 2 or more clients (PCR rule 20)

2 envisioned scenarios of conflict:
• BEFORE the lawyer takes on the matter
• When the lawyer is already acting for both parties, and a diversity of interests SUBSEQUENTLY develops
between the parties.

Rule 20(2) – PCR Rule 20(3), (4) and (7) apply where lawyer intends to act for 2 or more parties and where there is
a diversity of interests.

BEFORE the lawyer takes on the matter:

Note: numbers are right, but legislation is paraphrased!
• Rule 20(3) Sets out what must be done before accepting instructions from 2 parties with divergent
interests.
• Rule 20(3)(a) BEFORE accepting any instructions from 2 or more different parties,
o (i) – The lawyer is to explain

The divergence of interest between the relevant parties; and

how the lawyer/firm may be prevented from
• disclosing information to a relevant party (that is obtained from another relevant
party) or
• from giving advice to a relevant party that is prejudicial to another relevant
party.
o (ii) – The lawyer is to inform the relevant party that the lawyer/firm must cease to act if unable to
competently deal with parties’ divergent interests.
o (iii) – The lawyer is to answer and deal with all queries raised by the relevant party on the risks of
the divergent interests etc.
o (iv) – The lawyer is to ascertain the intentions of the relevant party.

• Rule 20(3)(b) – for transactions that are ostensibly or potentially disadvantageous to a relevant party, to

23
 explain possible detriment to relevant party, verify instructions that have been made on behalf of the
relevant party and remove any doubt as to whether relevant party had been misled or is acting under
undue influence.
• Rule 20(3)(c)/(d)(e) – advise to get independent legal advice and if not obtained, to get written
confirmation that the relevant party declines such independent advice as well as informed consent (see
Ahmad Khalis case below) in writing that lawyer shall act for all relevant parties.
• Rule 20(4) – Throughout the transaction/matter, the lawyer is to (a) stay vigilant of conflicts between the
interests of any relevant party and to inform the same of such conflicts; and (b) cease to act if the lawyer
is unable to competently deal with parties’ divergent interests.
EXCEPTION:
• Rule 20(7) – Notwithstanding Rules 20(4) and 20(6) providing for the lawyer to cease to act in prescribed
circumstances, the lawyer may continue to act for a relevant party if he ceases to act for all other parties
whose interests diverge and all the other parties give their informed consent for the lawyer to continue
acting in the matter or transaction.

SUBSEQUENT diversity of interests

• Rule 20(5)/(6) – If however, the lawyer is already acting (versus intending to act, c.f. r 20(2)) for 2 or more
parties and there is a diversity of interests, the same obligations in Rule 20(4) apply, i.e., lawyer to be
vigilant, and cease to act if unable to competently deal with divergent interests.

(Cases are based on the old rules, but still relevant)

Whether it is proper to act for multiple clients
Acting for multiple clients is not in and of itself improper. The question is whether the interests of the relevant
parties are adequately protected. This is the gist of the holding in Lie Hendri Rusli [2004], and is effectively
encapsulated in Rule 20(4) and (6).

Lie Hendri Rusli [2004] 4 SLR (R) 594

• There will be tension between the conflicting requirements of confidentiality and disclosure owed
concurrently to the multiple clients: What to disclose? When to disclose? Whom to disclose to? How to
disclose? What to confirm? How to confirm? What to advise? When to advise? Quite aside from the
contractual duties imposed and/or presumed by the retainer, a solicitor also has a fiduciary duty to
maintain confidentiality. For these reasons and more, many solicitors quite rightly shy away from acting
for multiple clients in all but the most straightforward and anodyne transactions. This prudent approach
does not, however, call into question the actual legitimacy of the practice of acting for multiple parties.
• A solicitor who, objectively speaking, reaches the crossroads where he has difficulty in advising and
dealing with multiple clients competently, evenly and consistently ought to discharge himself from
further involvement in the subject matter

Precautions to take when representing multiple clients

(LSS v Uthayasurian Sidambaram [ 2009] 4 SLR(R) 674 at [52]-[53])

• Advise client of risks and consequences of multiple representations and of the actual or potential conflict
that could arise
• Full disclosure and ask client to seek independent legal advice
• Highlight and advise on legal ramifications of transaction
• Proper documents and keep contemporaneous attendance notes
• Solicitor should not be mere conduit, post-box or puppet

Subbiah Pillai [2004] 2 SLR (R) 447

• Solicitor has burden to point out conflict of interest even if parties were aware of it, and even if the

24
 clients are savvy
• Irrelevant that there is no self-dealing if solicitor has placed himself in situations where his duties to both
parties of a transaction were in conflict without proper precautions taken or advice given

Who makes the judgment call when faced with a potential conflict
When acting for multiple defendants, it is the responsibility of EVERY LAWYER, and not the court, to decide FOR
HIMSELF and make a call whether he should decide to discharge himself or continue to act, under the Rules.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2002] 1 SLR(R) 798
• Partner in firm had acted for the estate of the 1st D’s deceased husband. Partner then acted for 1st D in
proceedings against 2nd D, who was a co-administrator of the estate.
• Court:
– A solicitor is entitled to caution his counterpart when he believes that a conflict of interest
situation looms in the distance, if it was not already upon the other.
– Firm cannot take a “neutral position” in the circumstances.
– Not for the Court to declare the propriety or otherwise of the firm to carry on acting.

What to do if there is a conflict

If unable to satisfy all their clients in a particular transaction because of a diversity of opposing interests, such
solicitors must either seek the informed consent of the parties or else extricate themselves from the conflict by
declining to act for some or all of them (Law Society v Ahmad Khalis [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308) (now statutorily
enshrined in rule 20(4)).

What is informed consent

Consent given in the knowledge that there is a conflict between the parties and that as a result the solicitor may
be disabled from disclosing to each party the full knowledge which he possesses as to the transaction or may be
disabled from giving advice to one party which conflicts with the interests of the other. (Clarke Boyce v Mouat
[1994] 1 AC 428 at 435)

• Failure to advise relevant parties to seek independent legal advice despite their interests being opposed
(Ganesan Krishnan [2003] 2 SLR(R) 251)
• Useful summary of the applicable principles discussed: see Surinder Singh Dhillion [2010] SGDT 8 at
paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4

Privileges- Inherent risks of joint retainers when matters become contentious:

Privileges may be joint, and hence, against each other, parties may not enjoy privilege.
• Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee Heng [2002] 1 SLR(R)664
– A case on interrogatories and solicitor client privilege
– But, highlights the inherent risks of joint retainers if matter becomes contentious
– Lawyer was solicitor for both pf and df and acted for their joint purchase of shares in a company.
Dispute arose between pf and df subsequently over purchase. Pf served interrogatories on lawyer
for certain information relating to purchase.
– Court: Privilege was a joint one, belonging to BOTH the Pf and Df. Privilege was in respect of
disclosure to 3Ps. In this case, no question of privilege in respect of the interrogatories served
since disclosure was as between pf and df (the joint clients) and not to 3Ps.

25
Summary
• Challenge: new rules /old cases
• Rule 21
– Same subject matter/asset or liability (Lush John Fredericks; Norhayati); alignment of interests
(India International Insurance)
– Adverse interest/ confidential information that is material to current representation
• Rule 20
– Diversity of interests (not always divergent, but clearly an important subset) & precautions that
lawyer has to take
– Safeguards (Lie Hendri Rusli; LSS); Informed consent (Clarke; Ahmad Khalis)

READ PRACTICE DIRECTIONS ON RULE 20 LISTED IN SYLLABUS, which sets out SPECIFIC practice directions for
SPECIFIC scenarios.

26
(5, 6) CONFLICT, OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT, BETWEEN INTERESTS OF
CLIENT AND INTERESTS OF LEGAL PRACTITIONER OR LAW PRACTICE
IN GENERAL (Rule 22 PCR)
Conflict, or potential conflict, between interests of client and interests of legal practitioner or law practice, in
general

General principles
22.
(1) The following principles guide the interpretation of this rule and rules 23, 24 and 25.
Principles
(a) A legal practitioner owes duties of loyalty and confidentiality to a client of the legal practitioner, and must
act prudently to avoid any compromise of the lawyer-client relationship between the legal practitioner and
the client by reason of a conflict, or potential conflict, between the interests of the client and the interests
of the legal practitioner.
(b) A law practice owes duties of loyalty and confidentiality to a client of the law practice, and must act
prudently to avoid any compromise of the lawyer-client relationship between the law practice and the
client by reason of a conflict, or potential conflict, between the interests of the client and the interests of
the law practice.

22(2) Except as otherwise permitted by this rule, a legal practitioner or law practice must not act for a client, if
there is, or may reasonably be expected to be, a conflict between —
(a) the duty to serve the best interests of the client; and
(b) the interests of the legal practitioner or law practice.

WHERE LAWYER HAS INTEREST IN A MATTER CONCERNING A CLIENT

22(3) Where a legal practitioner, any immediate family member of the legal practitioner, or the law practice in
which the legal practitioner practises has an interest in any matter entrusted to the legal practitioner by a client
of the legal practitioner —
Scenario 1: Averse interest between client and lawyer or lawyer’s family
(a) in any case where the interest is adverse to the client’s interests, the legal practitioner must withdraw
from representing the client, unless —
(i) the legal practitioner makes a full and frank disclosure of the adverse interest to the client;
(ii) the legal practitioner advises the client to obtain independent legal advice;
(iii) if the client does not obtain independent legal advice, the legal practitioner ensures that the client
is not under an impression that the legal practitioner is protecting the client’s interests; and
(iv) despite sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), the client gives the client’s informed consent in writing to the
legal practitioner acting, or continuing to act, on the client’s behalf; or
Scenario 2: Lawyer has interest, but perhaps not averse:
(b) in any other case, the legal practitioner must withdraw from representing the client, unless —
(i) the legal practitioner makes a full and frank disclosure of the interest to the client; and
(ii) despite sub-paragraph (i), the client gives the client’s informed consent in writing to the legal
practitioner acting, or continuing to act, on the client’s behalf.

WHERE LAW FIRM HAS INTEREST IN A MATTER CONCERNING A CLIENT

Scenario 1: Averse interest between client and law firm
(4) Where a law practice has an interest in any matter entrusted to it by its client —

27
 (a) in any case where the interest is adverse to the client’s interests, the law practice must withdraw from
representing the client, unless —
(i) the law practice makes a full and frank disclosure of the adverse interest to the client;
(ii) the law practice advises the client to obtain independent legal advice;
(iii) if the client does not obtain independent legal advice, the law practice ensures that the client is
not under an impression that the law practice is protecting the client’s interests; and
(iv) despite sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), the client gives the client’s informed consent in writing to the
law practice acting, or continuing to act, on the client’s behalf; or
Scenario 2: Law firm has interest, but perhaps not averse:
(b) in any other case, the law practice must withdraw from representing the client, unless —
(i) the law practice makes a full and frank disclosure of the interest to the client; and
(ii) despite sub-paragraph (i), the client gives the client’s informed consent in writing to the law
practice acting, or continuing to act, on the client’s behalf.

CASE EXAMPLES
It is not for third parties to decide whether there is a conflict of interest between a lawyer and his client.
Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another [2012] 2 SLR 451
• Horizon Towers collective sale
• P sued D for damages, namely solicitor-client costs incurred by P
• 2D challenged reasonableness of costs
• 2D sought an injunction to restrain P’s solicitors from acting for P on the basis that the issue of
reasonableness of the costs created a conflict of interest between P and P’s solicitors
• Court held that rule 25(a) was for the protection of the client and the client must be the aggrieved party
• A matter between P and P’s solicitors, not for third parties to file an injunction claiming conflict between a
client and solicitor
• Injunction on this ground dismissed

Personal and sexual relationships between solicitors and their clients are clearly wrong
The Law Society of Singapore v Singham Dennis Mahendran [2001] 1 SLR(R) 1
• personal and sexual relationships between solicitors and their clients are clearly wrong
• Personal service in a professional relationship must be distinguished from getting involved in the
personal lives of the clients.
• If solicitors become too involved in their clients’ personal lives during the existence of the solicitor-
client relationship, they may find themselves placed in a position of a conflict of interest and the
clients’ interests may be seriously prejudiced

Lawyers should not get into creditor/debtor relationship with client by lending client money
GN 2013, Paragraph 2 - Providing Welfare Assistance to Clients.
• Law practice lending money to clients, who were foreign workers on special passes pursuing claims, to
help them meet their daily living expenses
• Personal conflict of interest as lawyer will have creditor/debtor relationship with client and debt only
repaid of client’s claim was settled or successfully recovered

No conflict of interest for lawyer to use his brother’s firm for outsourced conveyancing search services; “matter”
in “interest in any matter” refers to the SUBSTANTIVE matter
Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen [2009] 1 SLR(R) 802
• R engaged by C and wife to act in conveyancing transaction. R engaged freelance conveyancing secretary,
X, to undertake searches and requisitions in relation to conveyancing matters
• X billed for his services through a business, HBS, owned by R’s brother.
• C was unhappy with R’s bill and lodged a complaint. R was found guilty of acting in conflict of interest or

28
 alternatively, failing to disclose the interest of his brother in the matter entrusted to him by his clients. R
was also guilty of overcharging, and had to show cause
• Held: NO conflict.
• Court held that “an interest in any matter” does not include an interest in the fees charged
• “matter” refers to the substantive matter entrusted by the client
• R’s decision to engage services of X did not, per se, raise any problem of conflict
• Not uncommon for solicitors to outsource services, provided client’s interest is not compromised
• If there had been no overcharging, appointment of X uneventful and irreproachable
• Even if overcharging, R would be guilty of a breach of his duty of care but not for acting in conflict

Conveyancing lawyer convicted for having prior dealings with estate company and moneylender involved in a
transaction, and prioritizing his interest in future referrals from these parties over his client’s interest.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477
• Similar modus operandi.
• C appointed estate agent to sell flat. Agent said that they had to buy a new flat before selling. C did so.
C needed money for new flat. Agent introduced C to licensed moneylender.
• Moneylender agreed to extend loan on condition that documents were signed at moneylender’s
lawyer’s office. Amount on documentation less than amount disbursed.
• C went to R’s office accompanied by second estate agent. C signed the documents, including one
appointing X as their attorney in sale.
• After flat sold, R asked C to sign statutory declaration authorising payments to second estate agent,
second estate agent’s company, moneylender, a second moneylender, R’s firm, and a third party. C
complained.
• Held:
• Respondent lawyer convicted of placing himself in a position of actual or potential conflict of interest
by failing to inform Client of his prior and existing relationships with the second estate company and
moneylender. Court found that there was an intricate web of relationships between almost all the
parties named in the statutory declaration
• R acted for second estate agent and moneylender previously and they referred clients to R
• The second moneylender was taken over by the manager of the second estate agent’s company
• R’s failure to enquire and/or advise Client about the basis and/or reasons why payments of a peculiar
nature were being made to R’s other standing clients appears to be because respondent lawyer was
putting his own interest in receiving future referrals and the interests of the second estate agent
company and moneylender ahead of Client’s interests
• R was suspended for 2 years

Respondent was acquitted on the facts- insufficient evidence of any conflict, but in dicta, held that:
If solicitor is aware of circumstances which would reasonably have raised concerns of a potential conflict of
interest, he cannot choose to remain silent. Ignorance of the conflict of interest is not a defence if lawyer is
wilfully blind.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju [2013] 3 SLR 875
• C and ex-husband contacted housing agent for sale of flat. Agent worked in company 49% owned by X,
who was sole proprietor of a licensed moneylender. C made known to agent of her need for S$10,000
to settle debts. Agent introduced C and ex-husband to X who agreed to extend loan if C appointed R
for the sale. C and ex-husband signed various documents, including
o Authorisation for R’s firm to act in sale of flat
o Documentation of an additional loan of S$9,000 to C from moneylender authorising R’s firm to
pay sum of S$19,000 plus interest to moneylender from the proceeds of sale
• When sale was completed, C revoked R’s firm’s authority to deal with proceeds. R’s firm applied to
Court for conflict claims to proceeds to be resolved. Moneylender sued C and a settlement was

29
 reached where C paid $10,000. C complained
• R was found guilty, among other things, for failing to advance C’s interests unaffected by his own
interest and the interests of the Agent, the Agent’s company or the moneylender. R had to show cause
• Held:
• Court held that although it was possible that an A&S could find himself in a conflict of interests
situation vis-à-vis with no third parties involved but the charge envisaged a third party and so it was
necessary to identify the third party
• Court found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that R had a relationship with the X
and the licensed moneylender or that R turned a blind eye to the loan transactions to advance the
interests of the moneylender
• There was also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that R knew that X was a 49% owner of the estate
company, it was in the agent’s interest to recommend C to X, and that X told C that she had to appoint
R
• Therefore there was no basis to conclude that there was a conflict of interests situation
• R was acquitted of this charge
• If R had known or had turned a wilful blind eye to the circumstances where concerns of a potential
conflict of interests would reasonably have been raised, R would have been guilty

No improper conduct found on the facts, but court in dicta was highly critical. Court said in dicta that there was
ADVERSE INTEREST because the two lawyers had a personal interest in the case. The lawyers should have
discharged themselves. Their firm acted for the client in the transaction that led to the dispute (and prima facie
the problem could be said to have been caused by the way one had handled the matter)
Ho Kon Kim v Betsy Lim [2001] SGHC 75; [2001] SGCA 64
• Firm had acted for client in sale of property and mortgage to bank.
o The conveyancing partner handling the case was liable for claim in negligence, and would be a
material witness in the proceedings against the defendant, but passed the matter to a
litigation partner in the same firm, who later acted for the client.
• High Court held that the firm should have ceased acting for client immediately under r 27, LPPCR – the
law firm’s interest was adverse to the client as law firm could be liable for negligence due to
conveyancing partner.
• HELD: Court of Appeal noted that both lawyers should have discharged themselves from acting for
client and advised her to seek independent legal advice, but nonetheless found that they did not act
improperly or unreasonably in representing her on the facts.

(7) PROHIBITED BORROWING TRANSACTIONS (Rule 23 PCR)

Prohibited borrowing transactions
Any transaction in which money or valuable security is borrowed from a client of a legal practitioner by the legal
practitioner or an associated party. (see 23(4) for full definition)

23.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a legal practitioner or law practice must not do any of the following:
(a) enter into a prohibited borrowing transaction;
(b) instruct, procure, provide security for or arrange for an associated party to enter into a prohibited
borrowing transaction;
(c) knowingly allow an associated party to enter into a prohibited borrowing transaction which the legal
practitioner or law practice has the power to prevent.
Exceptions to the rule against prohibited borrowing transactions
(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a prohibited borrowing transaction, if —

30
 Independent advice
(a) both of the following apply:
(i) every party to the transaction (other than the legal practitioner or law practice) has received
independent advice before the transaction was entered into;
(ii) the legal practitioner or law practice has made full disclosure of each interest of the legal
practitioner or law practice in the transaction;
OR independent representation
(b) both of the following apply:
(i) the legal practitioner or law practice does not act for any client of the legal practitioner or law
practice in the transaction;
(ii) any client of the legal practitioner or law practice that is a party to the transaction is represented,
in the transaction, by a legal practitioner from a different law practice or by a different law
practice; or
OR the Council says so
(c) the Council determines (whether before or after the transaction was entered into) that paragraph (1)(a)
does not apply to that particular transaction.
The following is pretty much a mirror of the above:
(3) Paragraph (1)(b) and (c) does not apply to a prohibited borrowing transaction, if —
(a) both of the following apply:
(i) every party to the transaction (other than the legal practitioner or law practice or the associated
party) has received independent advice before the transaction was entered into;
(ii) the legal practitioner or law practice has made full disclosure of each interest of the legal
practitioner or law practice, and of the associated party, in the transaction;
(b) both of the following apply:
(i) the legal practitioner or law practice does not act for any client of the legal practitioner or law
practice in the transaction;
(ii) any client of the legal practitioner or law practice that is a party to the transaction is represented,
in the transaction, by a legal practitioner from a different law practice or by a different law
practice; or
(c) the Council determines (whether before or after the transaction was entered into) that paragraph (1)(b)
and (c) does not apply to that particular transaction.
(4) In this rule —
“associated party” means —
(a) in relation to a legal practitioner —
(i) any individual who is an immediate family member of —
(A) the legal practitioner; or
(B) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of a law practice in which the
legal practitioner practises law; or
(ii) any body corporate, partnership, syndicate, joint venture or trust in which any of the following
individuals has any beneficial interest, whether vested or contingent:
(A) the legal practitioner;
(B) any individual who is an immediate family member of —
(BA) the legal practitioner; or
(BB) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of a law practice in which
the legal practitioner practises law; or
(b) in relation to a law practice —
(i) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of the law practice;
(ii) any immediate family member of the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or
employee, of the law practice; or
(iii) any body corporate, partnership, syndicate, joint venture or trust in which any of the following
has any beneficial interest, whether vested or contingent:

31
 (A) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of the law practice;
(B) any immediate family member of the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or
employee, of the law practice;

“client”, in relation to a legal practitioner or law practice, includes (in addition to a client as defined in section
2(1) of the Act) —
(a) any person who has an existing lawyer-client relationship with the legal practitioner or law practice;
(b) any person seeking to invest money through the legal practitioner or law practice; and
(c) any person approached by or on behalf of the legal practitioner or law practice to invest money
through the legal practitioner or law practice;
(i) “excepted person” means any licensed or authorised bank, finance company or other similar entity
the business of which includes lending money to members of the public;
“full disclosure” means such disclosure in writing by a legal practitioner or law practice as would be necessary
for a trustee transaction;

“independent advice” means advice —

(a) which was given in relation to a transaction by a legal practitioner or law practice that —
(i) is not a party to the transaction; and
(ii) does not represent any associated party in the transaction; and
(b) which the legal practitioner or law practice has certified in writing that the legal practitioner or law
practice has given;

“prohibited borrowing transaction” means any transaction under or by virtue of which money or valuable
security is borrowed (whether directly or indirectly, and whether with or without security) from a client (not
being an excepted person) of a legal practitioner or law practice —
(a) by the legal practitioner or law practice; or
(b) by an associated party of the legal practitioner or law practice.

Reason for prohibition- Client is vulnerable

Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng Christopher [2014] 4 SLR 877
• R was representing his nephew, who was incarcerated in Indonesia
• R requested loan from nephew
• R did not advise nephew to obtain independent legal advice before granting the loan
• R did not repay loan and nephew complained
• R found guilty of entering into a prohibited borrowing transaction
• R had to show cause
• Court held that a client is vulnerable vis-à-vis solicitor because solicitor enjoys a position of influence
over client
• Client may find it difficult to deny a loan simply because of trust and confidence he has reposed in the
solicitor
• Causing client loss is an aggravating factor
• R suspended for 2 years

EXEMPTION for lawyer borrowing from client- Longstanding friendship

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [2007] 1 SLR(R) 482
• C engaged R and discharged R subsequently
• C complained, among other things, that R borrowed money from C
• Inquiry Committee fined R $2,000 for this breach
• Council of Law Society accepted recommendation of Inquiry Committee and invoked power to exempt
loan transaction on basis that:
o Loan made by C to R on account of their long standing friendship at the bar

32
 o No evidence R exercised undue influence or took advantage of C
o C lodged complaint 2 years after loan was made was C must or should have been fully aware of
prohibition
o C was a lawyer of considerable legal and commercial experience
• C appealed
• Court held that as loan transaction was exempted, substratum of complaint failed
• C could not appeal but only seek judicial review of decision to exempt

Prohibition exists even if client is a professional money-lender!

The Law Society of Singapore v Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan [2015] SGDT 2
• C claimed that he lent $19,000 in total to R
• C partially repaid, $10,500 remained outstanding at time of complaint
• Not in dispute that C had not received independent advice in giving loan
• However, Disciplinary Tribunal found that R only borrowed $11,000 from C
• Finding that C was carrying on business as a money-lender
• Nevertheless, cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against R exists. Referred to Court of 3
Judges

(8) PURCHASES FROM CLIENT (Rule 24 PCR)

Purchases from client
24.—(1) Subject to the law on fiduciary relationships, a legal practitioner or law practice may purchase goods and
assets from a client of the legal practitioner or law practice only if the purchase is at the prevailing market price or
at such price as is reasonable.

(2) Where practicable, the legal practitioner or law practice must obtain an independent valuation of the goods
and assets.

(9) GIFTS FROM CLIENT (Rule 25 PCR)

25.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies —
(a) where a client of a legal practitioner intends to make a significant gift, whether by will or while the client
is alive, or in any other manner, to —
(i) the legal practitioner;
(ii) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of the law practice in which
the legal practitioner practises;
(iii) any immediate family member of —
(A) the legal practitioner; or
(B) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of the law practice in
which the legal practitioner practises; or
(iv) the law practice in which the legal practitioner practises; or

(b) where a client of a law practice intends to make a significant gift, whether by will or while the client is
alive, or in any other manner, to —
(i) the law practice;
(ii) the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or employee, of the law practice; or
(iii) any immediate family member of the sole proprietor, or any partner, director, consultant or

33
 employee, of the law practice.
(2) The legal practitioner or law practice —
(a) must not act for the client in relation to the gift; and
(b) must advise the client to obtain independent legal advice in relation to the gift.

CASES
Lawyer struck off for dishonestly taking advantage of a mentally incapacitated elderly client. Case also has
pronouncements on proper procedure to take when receiving gifts, esp when mentally incompetent
Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James [2013] 3 SLR 221
• Lawyer obtained power of attorney from mentally incompetent aged client granting him authority to
manage her affairs and a last will and testament making R the sole trustee and beneficiary of her
assets
• R valued property at $1,100,000 and arranged for it to be sold, $600k to go to him.
• Held:
• Struck off for dishonesty. Court of 3 Judges explained “significant gift” meant not only a gift significant
in absolute terms but also a gift significant having regard to the client’s means and the reasonable
expectations of other prospective beneficiaries
• Procedure:
o Give the client a full explanation of why independent advice was required.
o Ask client to nominate the independently-advising advocate and solicitor.
o Advise client to obtain written confirmation from the independently-advising advocate and
solicitor to the effect that a full explanation of the nature of the transaction and its practical
implications had been furnished.
o If the transaction by which the gift was to be made was of some complexity, he should provide
the independently-advising advocate and solicitor with all information necessary to make the
independent advice sufficiently comprehensive.
o Should client decline to seek independent advice for whatever reason, he should insist with
some force that client do so while reiterating the importance of receiving that independent
advice.
o In the absence of independent advice, he should simply decline to accept the gift
• Rule presupposes client is competent. If client is not or does not appear to be fully competent, extra
steps will have to be taken depend on the circumstances.

Law Society of Singapore v Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another [2015] 3 SLR 829
• Rs alleged that they received a $1.8m gift from C
• But no independent advice was given

34
PART III. The legal practitioner’s role in the
administration of justice
(1) CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT OR TRIBUNAL
Officer of the Supreme Court
Section 82(1) LPA – “Any person duly admitted as an advocate and solicitor and any legal officer shall be an officer
of the Supreme Court.”log
By Products Traders Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR(R) 449
[26]The label ‘officer of the court’ goes well beyond being a catchy or fancy turn of phrase. By definition it
presupposes and connotes that those so appointed have obligations and responsibilities in upholding
the legal framework . . .
[35] All solicitors qua officers of [the] court have an absolute and overriding duty first and foremost to
the court to serve public interest by ensuring that there is proper and efficient administration of justice.”

Duty to assist in the administration of Justice

There is a duty to assist in the administration of justice. The following are factual examples:

Zhou Tong v PP [2010] SGHC 198; [2010] 4 SLR 534

Professional incompetence and indolence can be seen as a form of dishonesty
[2] While the typically publicised cases of errant solicitors usually involve elements of dishonesty,
professional incompetence and indolence is no less a cause for concern. Such conduct may in fact
be viewed as another form of dishonesty − the receipt of fees for slipshod or non-existent work. . .
.
Unilaterally (without leave of court) departing from procedural requirements is a breach of absolute
duties to the court
[17] In addition to Mr Loo’s failure to properly discharge his responsibilities to his clients, he
had disregarded his absolute duties to the Court in assisting in the efficient and proper
administration of justice. Mr Loo had, without the prior leave of Court, unilaterally decided to
depart from the procedural requirement to file written skeletal arguments. There was not even a
letter from Mr Loo to the Registry to inform the Court that only brief oral submissions would be
made and what they might be.
Failing to inform the court of pertinent developments is prejudicial to the efficient and orderly disposal
of cases.
Even more appalling is the fact that Mr Loo had known at an earlier date that four of the
appellants could not be contacted, but had failed to inform the Court and the Public Prosecutor of
this until the appeal was heard. Mr Loo’s conduct was prejudicial to the efficient and orderly
disposal of cases.”

Chung Ting Fai [2006] 4 SLR(R) 587

Lawyer drafted a false affidavit to cover up mistakes which had caused his client to miss a deadline.
– Lawyer misrepresented the effect of an order to the client. Client eventually found out the true
effect of the order.
– Lawyer advised client to appeal – but time for appealing had expired.
– Lawyer drafted a false affidavit for the client to support an application for extension of time to
appeal. Client realised the draft was false and complained.
– Lawyer found guilty of misconduct. 1 year suspension. Court said sentence would have been
heavier if not for “exceptional circumstances”

35
 “[48] We cannot emphasise enough that solicitors owe a duty to the court and they must discharge their
duties in a manner consonant with their standing as officers of the court. On this ground alone, we are not
minded to endorse the proposition that any attempt by an advocate and solicitor to mislead the court,
even though it is a misguided attempt to assist a client, which in this case was aborted through the
intervention of the client, should be punished with a mere censure.”

Proper and honest evaluation about client’s case

PCR 2015 RULE 5
A legal practitioner must:
• be honest in all dealings with the client; and
• act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to the client
• conduct his or her case in a manner which maintains the fairness, integrity and efficiency of proceedings

Court censured counsel for both parties in a case for advising their clients to litigate over a matter concerning
$60.
Lock Jonathan v Goh Jessiline [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455
• “[45] We would like to conclude these grounds of decision with some observations on the role of
counsel in pursuing their clients’ interests in a court of law where monetary claims are involved. The
present case did not concern potential loss of life or liberty, physical or mental injury, injury to a person’s
reputation or even injury to his sense of pride. Instead, this was a case about dollars and “sense”. There
was no high principle at stake. What was involved here was a paltry sum of about $60. Yet, both counsel,
instead of exercising the degree of responsibility expected of an officer of the court and advising their
respective clients to settle the dispute with minimum fuss and, therefore, minimum cost, proceeded to
broaden the areas of contention between their clients unnecessarily and in a highly wasteful manner.
• [46] Plainly, this case could not have gone this far if both counsel involved had acted reasonably in the
interests of their clients. Although an advocate and solicitor has a duty to pursue his client’s interest
vigorously, he should only do so with the informed consent of the client, especially when pursuing the
client’s interest is counter-productive or results in an overall loss to the client (as was the case in these
proceedings). Rule 40 . . . requires an advocate and solicitor to evaluate with his client, in an appropriate
case, “whether the consequence of a matter justifies the expense or the risk involved” in going to court. If
ever there was a case where the evaluation delineated in r 40 should have been carried out, the present
matter was likely to have been such a case. We could not imagine any prudent party condoning the
solicitors’ conduct in this case if a proper risk-benefit evaluation pursuant to r 40 had been undertaken.”
If there is no merit in an appeal, the lawyer may be liable for not properly evaluating the merit of the case on
behalf of the client
Zhou Tong v PP (2010)
• HELD: If there is no merit in an appeal, the lawyer may be held to not properly evaluate the merit of the
case on behalf of the client.
– The essential question is whether the lawyer had faithfully and diligently directed his mind to the
facts of his client’s case, and to the applicable law.
• Court held that there are 2 facets to this duty:
– 1st is owed to clients.
– 2nd is owed to the court – solicitors who pursue appeals without adequately considering the merits
of their clients’ cases would be misusing the court’s time, as they would not be able to
constructively assist the court in evaluating the merits of the matter.

Duty not to deceive or mislead the Court on the law

PCR 2015 RULE 9
• PCR 2015 r 9 – A legal practitioner must:

36
 – (2)(a): not knowingly mislead or attempt to mislead in any way
– (3)(a): inform the Court or tribunal of every relevant decision, and every relevant legislative
provision, of which the legal practitioner is aware, whether that decision or provision supports or
rebuts the legal practitioner’s contentions before the court or tribunal

In Ram Goswami, the lawyer was suspended for 6 months for telling the court that bail money was from the
bailor’s savings when in fact it did not belong to the bailor.
Ram Goswami [1988] 2 SLR(R) 183
– Bailor was asked to show cause why bail should not be forfeited
– Lawyer knew that the bail money did not belong to the bailor
– Lawyer submitted that bail money should not be forfeited because it represented bailors’ 15 years’
savings
– 6 months’ suspension

In Dhanwant Singh, a lawyer was struck off the rolls for PRODUCING FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES to help his
accused clients avoid attending court (in an attempt to delay proceedings).
Dhanwant Singh [1996] 1 SLR(R) 1
– Lawyer assisted accused clients to avoid attending court by producing false medical certificates
– Convicted under s 174 read with s 109 PC – $3,000 fine
– Struck off the rolls
[12] An advocate and solicitor is an officer of the court . . . . As such it is the bounden duty of every
advocate and solicitor, no matter whether he is the precedent partner in the firm or just a legal
assistant or whether he has a great many years of practice behind him or has just a few years, to
uphold the integrity of the administration of justice in our courts and not to thwart it by delaying the
judicial process by such nefarious means as we have seen in this case. The seriousness of the offences
of which the respondent was convicted cannot in our judgment be minimised on any account. When
an advocate and solicitor intentionally abets a client from delaying the judicial process, which very
process it is his bounden duty to uphold, it shows an extreme defect of character. Bearing in mind that
s 2(1) of the Act expressly provides that no qualified person shall be admitted as an advocate and
solicitor unless, amongst the other requirements of s 12(1), he is of good character, a period of
suspension even for the full period of five years would be neither adequate nor appropriate.

Impropriety of the Client

In Narindar Singh v PP, a lawyer was struck off the rolls for conveying his client’s offer to confess in exchange for
gratification (the confession would have exonerated his co-accused).
Narindar Singh v PP [1996] 3 SLR(R) 318
– Lawyer acted in conjunction with client to corruptly solicit for client’s family a gratification of
$100,000 from co-accused’s family, in exchange for client exonerating co-accused by his signed
confession
– Convicted under s 5(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – 12 months’ imprisonment
– Struck off the rolls (see Law Society of Singapore v Narindar Singh)
[49] It is not suggested that the appellant’s act was anything other than voluntary and deliberate. What he
is really saying now amounts to this: ‘I said that my client said $100,000 must be paid. I did not say myself
that $100,000 must be paid.’ With respect, such protestations appear to me to be nothing more than a
specious exercise in semantics.
[59] The harm to our justice system was done as soon as the appellant asked Baldev to pay for the
confession. . . .
[60] As a senior member of the Bar and a former police officer, the appellant should have been all the
more keenly aware of the need to guard against any abuse of our justice system. I find his conduct
shocking and reprehensible.”

37
(2) RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLIENT’S CONDUCT IN PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE COURT OR TRIBUNAL
Impact of client’s instructions on preparation, submissions and presentation of documents
Duty not to assert a false claim
PCR 2015 RULE 10
PCR 2015 r 10(3) – A legal practitioner must prevent his or her client from suppressing evidence or giving false
evidence or false information to a Court or tribunal

BUT: Counsel can rely on client’s instructions at face value unless he has personal knowledge that they are false
or Instructions are inherently incredible or logically impossible.
Bachoo Mohan Singh [2010] SGCA 25; [2010] 4 SLR 137
– Whether a claim is “false” depends on “whether . . . the litigant’s action has a proper foundation
which entitles him to seek judicial relief” (at [94]).
– Whether a claim based on a sale price of $490,000 was “false” was a separate question from
whether the claim would succeed (at [100]).
– BMS as counsel was entitled to accept at face value Vendor’s instructions that he did not know of
the illegality from the outset (at [101]).

Duties in discovery/disclosure
Rule 10(3) obligates legal practitioners to prevent his client from suppressing evidence, such as by withholding
disclosure. Furthermore, if the legal practitioner becomes aware that his client is planning to or has actually
withheld a relevant document from discovery (contrary to his client’s sworn affidavit stating that the List is
comprehensive), this is grounds under Rule 10(4) for the legal practitioner to cease acting for the client.

Teo Wai Cheong [2013] SGCA 33; [2013] 3 SLR 573

[43]The responsibility for ensuring proper discovery falls not only on the litigant but on his lawyers as well.
. . . As officers of the court, solicitors owe a special duty to the court to properly explain to their clients
what these obligations are. They also owe a duty of involvement in and supervision of the disclosure
process.
– Bank failed to disclose documents
– Court commented that solicitors for the bank may not have taken all the steps they ought to have in
discharging their duty in disclosure
– Solicitors’ e-mails to bank merely informed the bank of the terms of O 24, which is insufficient to
discharge the solicitors’ duty in discovery
A solicitor must:
– [47] review the documents disclosed by client to consider whether relevant documents might have
been omitted
– [45] investigate further if he has reasonable grounds for supposing relevant documents have been
omitted
– [48] explain discovery obligations to any in the corporation who might be affected by them, if the
client is a corporation
Duty to disclose ALL material facts, not just those favourable to one’s case.

Global Distressed Alpha Fund [2013] SGHC 12; [2013] 2 SLR 228
[59] I would also like to take this opportunity to remind litigants and their professional advisers to take the
duty to disclose all material facts more seriously. It is too often the case that they emphasise material
facts favourable to the applicant only. As for those material facts favourable to the other party, they either
fail to mention them at all or fail to adequately bring them to the attention of the court.

38
(3) CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT OR
TRIBUNAL
Duty to not let roles (as lawyer and X) conflict
If there is a conflict of interest, FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE or WITHDRAW.
PCR 2015 RULE 22
A legal practitioner or law practice must not act for a client if there is, or may reasonably be expected to
be, a conflict between the duty to serve the best interests of the client and the interests of the legal
practitioner or law practice.
• If so, the legal practitioner should make full and frank disclosure to the client or withdraw.
Relationship with client or court must allow him to maintain professional independence
PCR 2015 RULE 11(2)
• Lawyer shall not appear where by reason of his relationship with the client it would be difficult
for the lawyer to maintain professional independence
• Lawyer shall not appear where by reason of his relationship with the Court the impartial
administration of justice might appear to be prejudiced
Legal practitioner cannot provide bail or surety for accused
PCR 2015 RULE 14(3)(a)
A legal practitioner who represents an accused person must not provide any surety or bail for the accused
person
Rationale for the rule:
– Bail: money put at risk personally by a surety to ensure attendance of accused in future court
proceedings
– Shows lawyer has personal interest in release of client beyond the scope of representation
– Gives lawyer a personal interest in being repaid which may conflict with his duties to the client
– Incarcerated client in no position to give informed consent to conflict

Legal practitioner must not accept instructions from a party to a case where he will be required to be a material
witness
PCR 2015 RULE 11(3)
Where it is known or it appears that a legal practitioner will be required to be a material witness:
– he or she must not accept instructions from any party to that case
– he or she must discharge himself or herself from acting for any party to that case
• Does not preclude another member of the firm acting unless doing so would “prejudice the administration
of justice”
• Prohibition lasts until the matter is disposed of
Rationale for the rule:
– Witness has paramount duty to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
– Lawyer has duty to present case in the best interests of the client
– Lawyer should not place himself in position where two duties could conflict

No impropriety found. Whether the rule against conflict extends to all other solicitors in the firm depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Then Khek Khoon v Arjun Permanand Samtani [2012] SGHC 17; 2012] 2 SLR 451
– Plaintiffs sought solicitor and client costs paid by plaintiffs to their law firm under loss and damage
– 2nd defendant sought an injunction to restrain the same law firm from representing the plaintiffs,
under PCR 2010 rr 25, 64
– HC dismissed the 2nd defendant’s application
– The real mischief targeted by the rules against conflict is the danger of the subconscious shaping of the
evidence to suit the solicitor’s interest as against that of his client and the duty to the court (at [47])

39
 – Whether the rule against conflict in PCR 2010 r 64(2) extends to all other solicitors in the same firm
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case (at [48])

No impropriety found, but court felt that firm should have ceased acting for the client when the
Conveyancing and liti partners handled a case where the conveyancing partner was a material witness
Ho Kon Kim v Betsy Lim Gek Kim [2001] SGHC 75; [2001] SGCA 64
– Firm had acted for client in sale of property and mortgage to bank
– Conveyancing partner in firm would be a material witness in proceedings against defendant
– Litigation partner in firm subsequently acted for client in claims arising from conveyancing transaction
– HC observed at [62] that firm should have ceased acting for client immediately under PCR 2000 r 27
– CA commented at [63] that both lawyers should have discharged themselves from acting for client and
advised her to seek independent legal advice but found that they did not act improperly or
unreasonably in representing her

(4) COMMUNICATIONS AND DEALINGS WITH WITNESSES (PCR Rule

12)
There are lots of rules regarding how a legal practitioner deals with witnesses.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• A legal practitioner must ensure that the legal practitioner acts in a manner consistent with the
administration of justice when dealing with any witness, regardless of the effect or potential effect of the
evidence given or to be given by that witness.
• A legal practitioner must exercise the legal practitioner’s own judgment both as to the substance and the form
of the questions put or statements made to a witness.

Legal practitioner must not discuss with his witness the evidence given or to be given by any witness
12(2): A legal practitioner must not, except with the leave of a court or tribunal, interview or discuss, with
a witness whom the legal practitioner has called in proceedings before the court or tribunal, at any time
after the start and before the end of the cross-examination of that witness, the evidence given or to be
given by that witness or any other witness.

Legal practitioner must not make any allegation against a witness he cross-examined unless the witness was
given an opportunity to answer the allegation during cross examination
12(3): A legal practitioner must not, by asserting in a statement to a court or tribunal, make any allegation
against a witness whom the legal practitioner cross-examined or was given an opportunity to cross-
examine, unless the legal practitioner has given the witness an opportunity to answer the allegation during
cross-examination.

Legal practitioner must not suggest a witness is guilty of any offence or conduct UNLESS
• the suggestion or attribution relates to a MATTER IN ISSUE which is MATERIAL to the client’s case AND
• is supported by REASONABLE GROUNDS
12(4): A legal practitioner must not suggest that a witness or any other person is guilty of any offence or
conduct, or attribute to a witness or any other person any offence or conduct of which the legal practitioner’s
client is accused, unless the suggestion or attribution relates to a matter in issue (including the credibility of
the witness) which is material to the client’s case and which appears to the legal practitioner to be supported
by reasonable grounds.

40
Legal practitioner must not say anything intended to vilify, insult or annoy a witness
12(5): A legal practitioner must not make any statement, or ask any question, which is scandalous, is
intended or calculated to vilify, insult or annoy a witness or any other person, or is otherwise an abuse of
the function of the legal practitioner.

Legal practitioner CAN interview and take statements from any witness at any stage in the proceedings, but has
to inform the other party’s counsel if the witness is or will be called by the other party.
12(6): A legal practitioner may interview and take statements from any witness (including a prospective
witness) at any stage in the proceedings, whether or not that witness has been interviewed or called as a
witness by any other party to the proceedings or by the prosecution (in the case of criminal proceedings).

12(7): However, if the legal practitioner is aware that the witness has been called, or has been issued a
subpoena, to appear in a court by any other party to the proceedings or by the prosecution (in the case of
criminal proceedings), the legal practitioner must inform that other party’s legal practitioner or the
prosecution (as the case may be) of the legal practitioner’s intention to interview or take statements from
the witness.

Legal practitioner CAN PAY THE WITNESS disbursements, but CANNOT make this contingent on the nature of the
statement or outcome of the case.
12(8): A legal practitioner —
• (a) may pay, or offer to pay, a witness any disbursements and expenses which the witness is allowed or
entitled to under the law; but
• (b) must not make, or offer to make, any payment to a witness which is contingent upon the nature of the
evidence given by the witness or upon the outcome of a case.

(5) RESPECT FOR COURT OR TRIBUNAL AND RELATED

RESPONSIBILITIES (PCR Rule 13)
Courtesy, undertakings and contempt
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
(a) A legal practitioner must present a case, and behave, before a court or tribunal in a manner which is
respectful of the court or tribunal.
(b) The manner in which a legal practitioner conducts a case before a court or tribunal must be consistent
with the standing, dignity and authority of the court or tribunal.
THE RULES
13(2): A legal practitioner must always be respectful of a court or tribunal.
13(3): A legal practitioner must always be courteous in the conduct of a case before a court or tribunal, whether
to the court or tribunal, or to any other person involved in the proceedings.
13(4): A legal practitioner must honour every undertaking given by the legal practitioner to a court or tribunal.
13(5): A legal practitioner must not give an undertaking to a court or tribunal unless the legal practitioner —
(a) believes that the undertaking is necessary; and
(b) knows (when giving the undertaking)that he or she is able to honour the undertaking.
13(6): A legal practitioner must not publish, or take steps to facilitate the publication of, any material concerning
any proceedings, whether on behalf of his or her client or otherwise, which —
(a) amounts to a contempt of court; or
(b) is calculated to interfere with the fair trial of a case or to prejudice the administration of justice.

Courtesy to the Court

PCR 2015 RULE 13
PCR 2015 r 13(3) – A legal practitioner must always be courteous in the conduct of a case before a court or

41
tribunal, whether to the court or tribunal, or to any other person involved in the proceedings

Courtesy shows respect for the administration of justice

– Preparation
– Punctuality Paragraph 39, PDR 2013, “Punctuality for court hearings”
– Introduction of one’s self
– Adhering to proper modes of address
– Adhering to proper modes of dress
– Maintaining emotional self-control
– Accepting rulings with grace

Re Hilborne [1983-1984] SLR(R) 322

– Lawyer “marched” unannounced and without appointment into trial judge's private chambers
– Did so in the absence of solicitors or counsel for the other party
– Was discourteous, rude and insolent to the judge
– Threatened to report the judge to high authority
– Addressed the judge in an angry tone of voice
– Struck off the rolls

Law Society of Singapore v Ravi Madasamy [2007] 2 SLR(R) 300

– Turned his back to the DJ while being addressed
– Walked away while being addressed
– Remained seated while being addressed
– Accused DJ of not addressing him properly
– Expressed his unhappiness at being pointed at
– Threatened to report DJ to the LSC and Min Law
– Was insolent when DJ told him not to speak to the prosecuting officer or to other counsel in loud
tones
[26] There was no doubt whatsoever that these acts . . . constituted misconduct . . . . Lack of
courtesy to the court in itself may be a minor infraction if it only shows the lack of a proper upbringing
or manners of the advocate and if it does not undermine the authority of the court. However, lack of
respect for the court, especially when it is in session, is a different and more serious kind of infraction.
When displayed publicly in the presence of court staff, counsel or members of the public, such form of
disrespect tends to diminish the standing of the court and undermines its authority in the eyes of the
public, especially when it is also displayed in a contemptuous manner. This was precisely what the
respondent did in this case.

Undertakings to the Court

13(4) and (5): A legal practitioner must honour every undertaking given to a court or tribunal, and must believe
the undertaking to be NECESSARY and that he is CAPABLE of HONOURING the undertaking

Lawyer suspended for not searching for and handing over files despite undertaking to do so
Re Seow Francis T [1971-1973] SLR(R) 727
– Police came to firm to seize relevant files
– Lawyer gave undertaking to AG to hand over all relevant files
– The police therefore did not search the firm
– Lawyer did not direct a search be conducted for relevant files
– Some relevant files not handed over
– 1 year suspension
Lawyer suspended for leaking affidavits to the press despite undertaking not to do so
Re Marshall David [1971-1973] SLR(R) 554

42
 – Lawyer and AG saw CJ in chambers
– AG was concerned affidavits might leak
– Lawyer undertook as follows: “The Attorney-General need have no anxiety about our office
because we never give any pleadings to the press before trial and I can assure you that neither
I nor my office have given these affidavits to them for publication.”
– Two days later, the lawyer sent copies of the affidavits to the press
– 6 months’ suspension

Forgery of documents
13(6): A legal practitioner must not publish, or take steps to facilitate the publication of, any material concerning
any proceedings, whether on behalf of his or her client or otherwise, which —
(a) amounts to a contempt of court; or
(b) is calculated to interfere with the fair trial of a case or to prejudice the administration of justice.

Lawyer struck off for forging a bill to justify not returning money to a client
Law Society v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon [2010] 2 SLR 1000
– Lawyer refused to return $100,000 to client on the grounds that it was paid by the lawyer as a
“Political Party Donation” on the client’s behalf to a foreign government’s representative.
– Lawyer rendered a bill to the client for $100,000 for “professional charges … including other
incidental work necessary to carry out the business entrusted to [his law firm] … (and) agreed costs
introducing and working towards turn key projects”.
– Lawyer had deliberately created a false document in the course of discharging his professional
duties.
– Even though the false document was not a court document, it was an important accounting record
relating to his law firm’s account.
– Lawyer had previously been suspended for a period of two years for falsifying a judgment.
– Struck off.

MISCELLENEOUS PDRs
PDR2013
• Para 3- Exchange of authorities
o Where a solicitor intends to rely on authorities at a hearing, he shall supply a copy of the
authorities to his opponent before the hearing.
o Unless there is a prior agreement between solicitors on a time at which authorities are to be
exchanged, where authorities are filed in Court before the hearing, the solicitor is to supply a copy
of the authorities to his opponent at the time of filing.
o This is to ensure that: a) the opponent is not taken by surprise; b) the overall efficiency of the
administration of justice is not compromised; and c) fairness in court proceedings is promoted.
• Para 4- Protracted arguments in chambers
o Solicitors appearing in chambers who anticipate their arguments would be substantial should ask
for their case to be STOOD DOWN.
o They should, where possible, give priority to other solicitors in line who are making applications
for adjournment or by consent.
• Para 8- Service of subpoenas
o Service of subpoenas on witnesses: Solicitors should not give short notices to witnesses to attend
Court. In several cases, instant subpoenas have been served a day or two before the date of
hearing, thus giving the witnesses concerned little time to make necessary arrangements. Such
practice is deprecated and solicitors are reminded that it is essential in the interests of the good
name and reputation of the profession that solicitors should show courtesy, consideration and
fairness to witnesses and they should take positive steps to ensure that their witnesses are given
sufficient notice of the date of hearing.

43
 o Service of subpoenas on govt officers: In order to establish mutual co-operation and
understanding between solicitors and Government officers, solicitors are advised that before
issuing a subpoena, they should communicate with the Head of the Government Department
concerned in the first instance, indicate the nature of the evidence required, and come to an
amicable arrangement with him so that a subpoena may be issued for the attendance of the
officer who is in possession of or is able to give the evidence required
• Para 9- Fees of court attendance by govt doctors/employees
o The fees for court attendances are prescribed under Section 2 of the Fees Act and is published in
the Government Gazette No. 5 dated 1st February 1985 - No. S. 38. These fees are for attendance
by government employees in all courts in Singapore for private summons irrespective of whether
attendances in Court are for criminal or civil cases. The fees are also chargeable if the government
employees are present in court but are not called to testify.
• Para 10- Responsibility for fees
o Where a solicitor calls a witness to give evidence on behalf of his client, he shall, before calling
upon the witness, make it clear to the witness concerned that he will not be personally responsible
for payment of the fees involved (in the case of a professional witness) or any such fees and
expenses (in the case of other witnesses). The solicitor should for his own protection either satisfy
himself that his client is willing and able to pay the witness’s expenses or, if he has no such
assurance, obtain payment from his client in advance of an amount sufficient to cover the
expenses. Where a solicitor directs a client to a foreign colleague, he is not responsible for the
payment of the latter’s charges, but neither is he entitled to a share of the fee of the foreign
colleague.
• Para 12- Vacating dates fixed for hearing
o A common but undesirable practice is whereby Solicitor A finding that he is unable to attend court
or chambers on a date and/or time previously fixed writes to the Registrar or other appropriate
court official with a request that it should be vacated, without having first obtained the consent of
his opponent, Solicitor B.
o Not only is it discourteous to make such a unilateral request, but it is also procedurally improper,
since unless there is consent on the part of one’s opponent he is entitled to be heard before a
hearing, attendance or appointment is vacated. Where such consent has been obtained and the
matter is one which can be thereby vacated, Solicitor A’s letter should state the Solicitor B’s
consent has been obtained, otherwise such a letter should not be written at all.
• Para 16- Solicitor on record
o If in any civil proceeding the name of any solicitor appears on the record for any party, no other
solicitor shall knowingly agree to act or continue to act for such party in such proceeding unless he
has, in ignorance that such name so appears on the record, already agreed to act for such party
and is unable by reason of circumstances or urgency or the like to refuse to act further to such
party without exposing himself to a change of breach of professional duty.
• Para 50- Attestation of documents
o Requirement for Signatories to Personally Appear before Solicitor Attesting to the Signature of
Documents: In a past complaint investigated by the Inquiry Committee, it was alleged that a
solicitor had attested the signature of certain documents without the signatory having personally
appeared before the solicitor. Members of the Society are warned of the dangers of this practice.
Members who are Commissioners for Oaths are particularly advised to heed the warning
GN 2013
• Para 5- Clients’ presence in chamber hearings

Chamber hearings are closed hearings. Presence of clients in chambers is a matter of
discretion for the hearing judge or registrar, granted by APPLICATION.

Should consider such an application where clients may have a VITAL INTEREST in the
outcome of a particular chambers hearing (esp for FAMILY cases where ancillary matters
are the real substance of the dispute)

44
(6) CONDUCTING THE DEFENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (PCR
Rule 14)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
(a) A legal practitioner who represents an accused person in any criminal proceedings is under a fundamental
duty to assist in the administration of justice.
(b) A legal practitioner who represents an accused person in any criminal proceedings must present the
accused person’s case and behave in a manner which is consistent with the aims of these Rules, and must
comply with the constitutional, evidential and procedural rules which operate in a criminal trial.

Legal practitioner must pursue every reasonable defence

14(2): A legal practitioner who represents an accused person in any criminal proceedings must pursue
every reasonable defence, and raise every favourable factor, on behalf of the accused person in
accordance with law.

Legal practitioner cannot provide bail

14(3): A legal practitioner who represents an accused person:
a) must not provide any surety or bail for the accused person;

Legal practitioner cannot express opinion of client’s guilt, absent himself without reasonable grounds, and must
continue to assist client after conviction
14(3): A legal practitioner who represents an accused person:
b) must not provide any surety or bail for the accused person;
c) must not express the legal practitioner’s personal opinion as to whether the accused person is
guilty, or allow the legal practitioner’s personal opinion as to whether the accused person is guilty
to affect the legal practitioner’s professional assessment of the facts or the law, the legal
practitioner’s conduct of the criminal proceedings, or the legal practitioner’s duty to the accused
person or the court;
d) must not be absent from a trial or hearing without reasonable grounds;
e) must, if absent from a trial or hearing —
i. communicate the grounds for the legal practitioner’s absence to the accused person
before the trial or hearing; and
ii. make reasonable efforts to arrange for another legal practitioner to take over the conduct
of the trial or hearing; and
f) must continue to reasonably assist the accused person after the accused person is convicted and
sentenced.

Legal practitioner’s behavior if client confesses to him:

14(4): Where a legal practitioner represents an accused person, and the accused person confesses to any
offence to the legal practitioner, the legal practitioner —
a) may continue to represent the accused person; but
b) must not adduce any evidence or make any submission which is inconsistent with the confession by
the accused person.

Legal practitioner must advise client whether to plead guilty and whether to give evidence. He must also abide
by client’s decision.
14(5): A legal practitioner —
a) must advise an accused person he or she represents on —
(i)whether to plead guilty, or to claim trial, to a charge; and
(ii)whether to give evidence or to remain silent in the accused person’s defence; and
b) must abide by the decision of the accused person.

45
What happens when client absconds?
14(6): If an accused person absconds, the legal practitioner representing the accused person may —
a) apply to be discharged from acting in the matter; or
b) Conduct the defence on the basis of instructions received as if the accused person was present but
elected to remain silent.

Legal practitioner cannot make mitigation plea that is scandalous or calculated to vilify, insult or annoy anyone.
14(7): If an accused person has pleaded guilty or has been convicted after trial, the legal practitioner
representing the accused person, when presenting a plea in mitigation, must not make any allegation
which is scandalous or is intended or calculated to vilify, insult or annoy any person.

Legal practitioner’s obligations wrt PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS of client:

14(8): If an accused person has any previous conviction or antecedent, the legal practitioner representing
the accused person
- is not required to disclose such antecedent, but
- must not adduce any evidence or make any submission which is inconsistent with the previous
conviction or antecedent of the accused person.

(7) CONDUCTING THE PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

(PCR Rule 15)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
(a) A legal practitioner who prosecutes an accused person in criminal proceedings is under a fundamental
duty to assist in the administration of justice.
(b) A legal practitioner who prosecutes an accused person must present the legal practitioner’s case and
behave in a manner which is consistent with the aims of these Rules, and must comply with the
constitutional, evidential and procedural rules which operate in a criminal trial.

Duty to present evidence fairly and impartially, without malice, fear or favour.
15(2): A legal practitioner who represents the prosecution in any criminal proceedings must present the
evidence against an accused person
- fairly and impartially, and
- without malice, fear or favour, in accordance with law.

Duty to inform defence of ALL possibly relevant witnesses and any CONFLICTS between ANY WITNESS and his
PRIOR STATEMENTS.
15(3): A legal practitioner who represents the prosecution must, within a reasonable time before the close of
the prosecution’s case, inform the accused person or the accused person’s legal practitioner of —
a) the identity, and the location (if known), of any person who may be able to give relevant evidence, but
will not be called as a prosecution witness; and
b) any substantial conflict between the evidence given by a prosecution witness on a material issue and
any prior statement provided by that prosecution witness.

SENTENCING: Duty to inform COURT of any ANTECEDENTS of accused, SENTENCING PRECEDENTS as well as
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (if accused is unrepresented)
15(4): A legal practitioner who represents the prosecution must, within a reasonable time after the conviction
but before the sentencing of an accused person, inform the court of —
a) any previous conviction or antecedent of the accused person that the prosecution knows of;

46
 b) any relevant factors, and any known precedents, relating to the sentence; and
c) if the accused person is unrepresented, any known mitigating circumstances.

Duty not to color court’s judgment: Prosecutor CANNOT inform court of any other or pending proceedings
against accused
15(5): A legal practitioner who represents the prosecution must not inform the court of any other or pending
proceedings against the accused person, except —
a) in relation to an application for an adjournment, remand or bail;
b) in response to an assertion that there are no other or pending proceedings; or
c) where evidence of the other or pending proceedings would otherwise be admissible as a result of any
law or rule.

Duty to draw court’s attention to any ERROR, omission of FACT, or procedural IRREGULARITY
15(6): A legal practitioner who represents the prosecution must assist the court at all times before the
conclusion of a trial, including by drawing the court’s attention to
- any apparent error (whether of fact or of law),
- any apparent omission of fact, and
- any procedural irregularity,
which in the opinion of the legal practitioner ought to be corrected.

47
PART IV. Relationship with Other Legal Practitioners
and Other Persons
(1) RESPONSIBILITIES OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS TO EACH OTHER
(Rule 7 and 27, PCR)

Duty of Courtesy & Fairness

Applicable rules:
• Rule 7 LPPCR 2015
• Rule 27 to 31 LPPCR 2015
• Equivalent Provisions in PCR 2010: Rules 47, 48, 49, 51, 52 as well as 70, 71, 63 and 53

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
PCR 2015 Rule 7(1)
(a) - A legal practitioner must always accord to another legal practitioner the proper respect due to the latter as a
member of a noble and honourable profession.
(b) - A legal practitioner must deal with another legal practitioner in good faith and in a manner which is dignified
and courteous, so that the matters on which they have been instructed can be properly and satisfactorily
concluded or resolved in the best interests of their respective clients
(c) - A legal practitioner must not deal with another legal practitioner in any manner that may adversely affect the
reputation and good standing of the legal profession or the practice of law in Singapore.

PCR 2015 Rule 27

(a) – A legal practitioner involved in any court proceedings (whether as a counsel a witness or otherwise) must
relate to another legal practitioner in a manner which promotes the administration of justice.
(b) – A legal practitioner is responsible to an opposing legal practitioner for maintaining due process and
promoting the administration of justice.

Rationale:
“Lawyers must behave nobly and honourably whether they are dealing with fellow lawyers, other
professionals or lay persons. Honesty, fairness, moderation and courtesy must be our hallmarks. We must
interact in a dignified and courteous manner so that the matter on which we have been instructed can be
properly and satisfactorily concluded or resolved in the best interests of our clients. The behaviour of
lawyers affects the reputation of the profession, the good standing of which is vital to the integrity of the
legal system.”
-A Civil Practice: Good Counsel for Learned Friends (2011), 1st Ed

“Advocates and solicitors must always accord each other the proper respect due to them as members of a
noble and honourable profession. They must relate to each other in good faith and in a manner which is
dignified and courteous so that the matters on which they have been instructed can be properly and
satisfactorily resolved in the best interest of the clients. The relationship between the advocates and
solicitors affect the reputation of the profession, the good standing of which is vital to the integrity of the
legal system”

48
 -Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Jeffrey Pinsler, SC pg 321

PRIMARY RULE
Rule 7(2) - A legal practitioner must treat other legal practitioners with courtesy and
fairness

Duty of Courtesy & Fairness-No conflict with an adversarial system and acting in client’s interest
China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd [2005] 2 SLR(R) 509
“[64] Although we operate within an adversarial system which, by its very nature, mandates counsel on
each side advocating, as persuasively and as fearlessly as possible, their arguments on behalf of their
respective clients, this can – indeed, ought – to be achieved within a framework of what, for want of a
better term, I would classify as professional courtesy and common decency. Put in simpler terms, one can
disagree and yet not be disagreeable. The clash of arguments that is supposed to result in the emergence
of the light of truth must not degenerate so that more heat than light issues. Looked at in a practical light,
where there is the (hopefully, merely occasional) descent into a less than agreeable situation, not only is
the legal system in general sullied by such unseemly conduct but the court is also hindered in ascertaining
what the true facts are and, hence, in arriving at a fair and just decision.”

Examples of conduct in breach of the duty of Courtesy & Fairness:

Offensive letters (also see below, PDR 2013, Paragraph 56)- The Law Society of Singapore v Terence Tan Bian
Chye [2007] SGDSC10
o Lawyer sent letters accusing opposing counsel and various parties of deception and misleading the
court, etc. and contained statements or asked questions which were offensive, scandalous or
intended or calculated only to vilify or annoy the addressees.
o HELD: Guilty of misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor. Ordered to pay a penalty.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2015] SGHC 120

BUT, there have been cases where taking a “bloody-minded approach” did not attract sanction under the
“professional discourtesy” rules, although it may constitute other infractions.
Law Society of Singapore v K Jayakumar Naidu [2012] SGHC 200
[75] the respondent was plainly taking a bloody-minded approach in relation to his dealings with (the
other lawyer). It is clear from the exchange reproduced above that this was a result of the respondent
feeling slighted by [the other lawyer] having gone behind his back to contact his client, HCS. However, it
was unreasonable for the respondent to prefer assuaging his “hurt” over his duty to advance his client’s
interests
[77] … We also do not think that the respondent’s conduct attracts sanction under (then) r 47. This is a
case of abdication from responsibility and patent disregard of a client’s interests rather than professional
discourtesy.

Other manifestations of the general duty of courtesy and fairness

Note: these manifestations are not exhaustive

COMMUNICATIONS WITH REPRESENTED CLIENTS

• Rule 7(3) – No communication with represented clients without express approval unless not reasonably
practicable or severe prejudice to own client
o A replaced lawyer may not communicate with a former client to ascertain the new lawyer’s authority–

49
 see paragraph 36 PDR 2013

SECOND OPINIONS
• Rule 7(4) – Lawyer may give second opinion to represented clients but must not improperly seek to influence
the client to change lawyers
o In giving a second opinion, a lawyer must carefully consider whether he is in possession of sufficient
facts to give such an opinion – see paragraph 14 PDR 2013
o It is gross discourtesy for a lawyer to comment on the advice given by another lawyer to the other
lawyer’s client, even if the other lawyer’s client is his friend. The lawyer may, however, suggest to his
friend that he might wish to obtain the other lawyer’s advice on certain aspects of the case – see
paragraph 15 PDR 2013

UNDERTAKINGS
• Rule 7(6) and (7) – Lawyer must honour every undertaking given to another lawyer and must not give such an
undertaking unless he believes it is NECESSARY and that he is certain he is ABLE to honour the undertaking
o An undertaking by one lawyer to another is a solemn promise on which the latter may rely by making a
concession or agreeing to a request or taking (or not taking) a certain step. The former must honour
this undertaking in keeping with his duty to act in a professional and responsible manner towards
other lawyers.
o See generally Law Society v Arjan Chotrani Bisham [2001] SGHC 24 on the gravity of the breach of one
lawyers agreement with another.

Lawyer was SUSPENDED for 6 months for failing to deliver some documents by a deadline he
had committed himself to, even though the reason for the delay was the DEATH OF HIS
SISTER from CANCER and his OWN diagnosis and treatment for the same. WHAT THE FUCK.
o As such, a lawyer should never give an undertaking which requires the fulfillment of a condition by a
third party or any other condition which is not within his control

AUTHORITY TO ACT
• Rule 7(8) – Lawyer may ask another lawyer if he has authority to act for a person, but Rule 7(9) – Lawyer must
accept a written representation from another lawyer that he has authority to act unless there is good reason
to suggest otherwise
o BUT If there are good reasons to doubt the “written representation” from the other lawyer, one may
require that other lawyer to produce his “warrant to act”. The responsibility to be courteous must be
subject to the duty owed to a client to challenge the opposing advocate and solicitor’s authority when
it is appropriate to do so. In such a situation, there should be no misgivings about offending
sensibilities.
o A lawyer should not view the request to produce his warrant to act as a request that casts “aspersions
on (his) professionalism and integrity” - Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd and
others [2005] 3 SLR(R) 184 at [45]

ENTRAPMENT
• Paragraph 64, PDR 2013 – A lawyer must not obtain evidence of another lawyer’s wrongdoing by entrapment
or other illegal or improper means.
o See Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377, Law Society v Tan
Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
o A lawyer (the procurer of the entrapment) must not instigate or intentionally aid another solicitor
(the errant solicitor) to commit an offence or a breach of the rules of professional conduct. The act
of procurement would be a breach of duty of courtesy & fairness in itself.

50
OTHER RANDOM PDRs CHECK THESE- THEY OVERLAP A LOT WITH
THE RULES AND CASES AND MAY BE USEFUL
PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 21- DRAFT DOCUMENTS
A solicitor shall comply with the requirements of common courtesy in dealing with draft documents as
follows:
• A draft should be delivered in duplicate.
• Amendments should be made on the draft clearly showing the original and the amendment. One
established method is to underline the additions and cross out the deletions but there may well be
other appropriate methods. A draft should not be amended by delivering a new document altogether.

Special circumstances may require a departure from the general practice, in which case an explanation
should be given. Circumvention of these requirements is not justified by delivering the amended version to
the client for the client to deliver to the other solicitor or his client.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 19- DRAFT ORDERS OF COURT – DISAGREEMENT

A. Disagreement
If an Order drawn by a solicitor is amended by the solicitor for any other party or parties and the solicitor
who drew such Order or any other solicitor concerned is unwilling to accept the draft Order as amended,
the party seeking to take out the Order shall within a reasonable time take out an appointment to settle
the Order.
B. Initialing Amendments
Any solicitor making any amendment in an Order drawn by another solicitor shall initial such alteration.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 37- PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCE

When a solicitor seeks a professional conference with his colleague, he shall call on the solicitor from
whom it is sought, irrespective of whether the solicitor seeking the conference is senior in call or not.
When the appointment has been made, the solicitor concerned should ensure, that as a matter of
courtesy, his call is attended to promptly.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 52- WAITING TIME BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TAX BILLS EX PARTE
Solicitors shall extend their courtesy by waiting for a reasonable period of time for the solicitor on the
other side to appear before proceeding for taxation. The practice of having bills taxed ex-parte should only
be resorted to under exceptional circumstances. It is good etiquette to attempt to contact the other
solicitor before proceeding to go ex-parte.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 55- CHALLENGING ANOTHER SOLICITOR ON LAW SOCIETY’S RULINGS
It is not proper conduct for a solicitor to challenge another solicitor who acts in accordance with a ruling
made by the Law Society simply because the challenging solicitor does not agree with that ruling. The
appropriate course would be for the challenging solicitor to take up the disputed ruling with the Society if
he can.

A solicitor who seeks a ruling from the Law Society can always write to the Law Society in the proper
manner for a ruling without the consent of the other solicitor involved.

The refusal of the other solicitor to agree to refer a matter to the Law Society for a ruling is in itself not
improper conduct. However, the solicitor who refuses to agree to request the ruling is only preventing
himself from putting forward his contentions to the Law Society and has to take the consequences of his
actions.

51
PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 56- RELATIONS WITH OTHER SOLICITORS
A solicitor must at all times maintain his or her personal integrity and observe the requirements of good
manners and courtesy towards other members of the profession or their staff, no matter how bitter the
feelings between clients. A solicitor must not behave in a manner which is acrimonious or offensive or
otherwise in consistent with his or her position as a solicitor.

Likewise, a solicitor must not write offensive letters to members of the profession, whatever the degree of
bad feeling existing between the respective clients.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 85- QUOTING OF REFERENCES IN CORRESPONDENCE

Representations have been received from members of the Bar that when writing to one another, members
of the Bar have omitted to quote the other solicitors’ reference, although they generally asked for their
own references to be quoted in correspondence. Members of the Bar are kindly asked to co-operate in this
matter.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 97- PHONE ETIQUETTE

It is a rule of etiquette that when a solicitor calls another solicitor on the telephone, the person making the
call should be ready to receive the person called when the latter answers. Persons who are called should
not be kept waiting on the line until the person calling comes on the line. However, this rule need not be
followed in cases where it is known that the member called may only be reached through the intermediary
of a secretary, in addition to the operator.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 14- NO TAKING OVER BRIEF UNTIL RETAINER DETERMINED AND BASIS OF SECOND
OPINION
A solicitor should not act in a matter in place of another solicitor whom he knows has been retained until
that retainer has been determined by the client. While a second solicitor may give a second opinion
without the knowledge of the first solicitor, he must carefully consider whether he is in possession of
sufficient facts to give such an option.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 15- ADVISING A FRIEND WHO IS A CLIENT OF ANOTHER SOLICITOR
If a friend of Solicitor A discusses a matter with him and Solicitor A is not acting for any party in the matter
or is informed by his friend that the latter is represented by Solicitor B, it would be a gross discourtesy for
Solicitor A to comment on the advice tendered by Solicitor B. However, it would not be improper for
Solicitor A to suggest to his friend that he might wish to discuss certain aspects of the matter with Solicitor
B in order that Solicitor B can advise him on those aspects of the matter. Nevertheless, it would not be
proper for Solicitor A to discuss the matter further than that with his friend, as otherwise the relationship
of mutual confidence and trust which exists between his friend and Solicitor B would necessarily be
disturbed.

PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 86A- SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS ON SOLICITORS

A. Accepting Service of Originating Process
Solicitors when writing to the effect that they have instructions to accept service, should state that they
“undertake” to accept service and enter an “appearance” instead of the usual form of merely “we have
instructions to accept service.”
B. Effecting Service of Originating Process, Court Documents or Other Written Communications on a
Client of Another Solicitor
Where Personal Service of Documents Is Not Allowed
If: 3.1. the Solicitor has been in communication with the Third Party’s Solicitor and such communication is
related to the Client’s actual or contemplated proceedings; and
3.2. the Rules of Court or other applicable law require the Solicitor to serve the Documents on the Third
Party personally but permit the Solicitor to serve the Documents on the Third Party’s Solicitor as an

52
 alternative to personal service on the Third Party, the Solicitor must not serve the Documents on the Third
Party personally unless:
3.3. the Solicitor has enquired with the Third Party’s Solicitor whether the latter has instructions to accept
service of the Documents on behalf of the Third Party; and
3.4. the Third Party’s Solicitor does not confirm within 3 working days (excluding a Saturday, Sunday or
public holiday) or such other period of time as agreed between the parties that the Third Party’s Solicitor
ha

(2) ENTERING DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Rule 28 PCR 2015)

Equivalent provision in PCR 2010: Rule 70 (which only applied to two situations: (a) before entering judgment in
default of defence and (b) before setting a divorce petition down as uncontested as an answer has not been filed

PCR 2015 Rule 28 – Lawyer must not enter default judgment against a represented party without giving the
other lawyer at least 2 working days notice
• The 2 working days’ notice can only be given after the lapse of the relevant time period limited for
either entering an appearance or filing the defence (see paragraph 40 PDR 2013)
• Any notice given on a working day after 4pm or on a day other than a working day shall be deemed to
have been given the next working day

Public Trustee and another v By Products Traders Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR 449 at [31]
This is a rule of professional courtesy and fairness and is intended to ensure that one lawyer does not take
unfair advantage of the oversight of another. As is aptly put- “the arms which he wields are to the be arms
of a warrior, not an assassin. It is his duty to strike to accomplish the interests of his client- per fas but not
per nefas”

NOTE: Potential problem for default judgments in DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE

(if so, copy this WHOLE chunk in):
The omission in Rule 28, PCR 2015 of the words “on record”, which was in Rule 70, PCR 2010, may mean that the
new Rule 28 now applies even to judgments in default of appearance (i.e. before the MoA is filed), as long as the
other party is “represented by another legal practitioner”.

However, it is submitted that until clarifications from the Court or Law Society, the better view may be to give the
other solicitor 2 days notice before entering judgment in default of appearance:

• where it has come to your knowledge in correspondence that he is acting for the other party, AND
• the other party has failed to cause appearance to be entered within the requisite timeline.
This view is arguably consonant with the guiding principles enumerated in Rule 7 and 27.

(3) ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ANOTHER LAWYER (Rule 29 PCR 2015)

• Equivalent provision in PCR 2010: Rule 71
• Rule 29 – Lawyer must not permit any allegation against another lawyer to be made in a document filed in
court unless the other lawyer is given the opportunity to respond and his response is disclosed to the court
where practicable.

See paragraph 51 PDR 2013

53
(4) COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT (Rule 30 PCR)

RESTRICTIONS ON COMMUNICATING WITH THE COURT (GENERAL)

PCR 2015 RULE 30
30.—(1) Where a legal practitioner (A) acts for a party to any proceedings that the legal practitioner knows are
pending, or are likely to be pending, before the court, the legal practitioner must not initiate any
communication with the court about the facts, issues or any other matter in those proceedings, unless —
(a) A has given each legal practitioner acting for another party to those proceedings a reasonable
opportunity to be present or to reply; and
(b) if A’s communication with the court was in writing, every other party to those proceedings is given a
copy of the written communication.
(2) If a legal practitioner who acts for a party to any proceedings fails to comply with paragraph (1) when
communicating with the court about those proceedings, the legal practitioner must inform each legal
practitioner acting for another party to those proceedings of the circumstances as soon as possible.

EX PARTE APLICATIONS
An ex parte application is one which does not involve service of the application on any other party. There are
specific rules for different types of ex parte applications.

30.—(3) A legal practitioner who initiates any communication with the court in relation to an ex parte
application filed by the legal practitioner must comply with all relevant practice directions relating to ex parte
applications.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (3), paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to any communication referred to
in paragraph (3).”

Specific rules:
FOR INJUNCTIONS
Under paragraph 41 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions, any party applying ex parte for an injunction must
comply with the following rules:
• give notice of the application to the other concerned parties prior to the hearing
• Notice may be given by way of fax, telex or orally by telephone
• Except in cases of extreme urgency or with leave of the court, a minimum of two hours’ notice must be
given before the hearing
• Notice should inform the other parties of the date, time and place fixed for the hearing, and the nature of
the relief sought
• A copy of the originating process, the ex parte summons and supporting affidavit should be given to each
of the other parties in draft form as soon as they are ready to be filed in court
• In the event that some or all of the other parties concerned are not present or represented, the applicant’s
solicitors should inform the court of:
– The attempts that were made to notify the other parties or their solicitors of the making of the
application;
– What documents were given to the other parties or their solicitors and when the documents were
given; and

54
 – Whether the other parties or their solicitors consent to the application being heard without their
presence
• Exception
– However, none of the preceding directions needs to be followed for an ex parte application for
injunction if the giving of notice to the other parties, or some of them, might defeat the purpose
of the ex parte application.
– In such cases, the reasons for not following the directions should be clearly set out in the
affidavit prepared in support of the ex parte application

(5) COMMUNICATION WITH ANOTHER LEGAL PRACTITIONER (Rule

31 PCR)
• Rule 31 of the LPPCR
“Where a legal practitioner acts for a party in a matter, the legal practitioner must not disclose to the court any
communication relating to the matter between the legal practitioner and a legal practitioner acting for another
party in the matter, unless there is an agreement between the 2 legal practitioners to do so”

• Rule 31 could apply to both discussions prior to the commencement of proceedings as well as discussions
in the course of court proceedings.
• The discussions could involve matters concerning the way to proceed, mutual concessions relating to
procedure or the lawyers’ respective views of the case.
• Notwithstanding this rule, in practice, lawyers often expressly reserve their rights when they do not want
certain communications between them to be disclosed, e.g., by using terms such as “without prejudice” or
“off the record”.

(6) CONDUCT IN RELATION TO OTHER PERSONS (Rule 8 PCR)

PCR 2015 RULE 8

Guiding Principle
8(1) – “The following principles guide the interpretation of this rule.
(a) A legal practitioner who deals with any person must, regardless of whether that person is involved in
any matter with which the legal practitioner is concerned, be honest and courteous, and behave in a
manner befitting the legal practitioner’s professional standing.
(b) A legal practitioner must behave in a manner consistent with the public interest…”
(c) – “A legal practitioner must treat with fairness any person who is not represented by another legal
practitioner.”

Responsibilities to UNREPRESENTED THIRD PARTIES or litigants-in-person

8(2) – “A legal practitioner (A), when dealing on behalf of his or her client with any person who is not represented
by another legal practitioner —
(a) must decline to give to the person any legal advice (other than advice to obtain independent legal

55
 advice), if A knows or ought reasonably to know that the interests of the person are adverse, or potentially
adverse, to the interests of A’s client; and
(b) must take reasonable steps to ensure that the person is not under the impression that the person’s
interests are protected by A.”

In LSS v Ahmad Khalis, the court found an implied retainer. However, in dicta, it held that a lawyer could be guilty
of unprofessional conduct with respect to third parties with whom he has no contractual relationship or legal
relationships.
The Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308
– A lawyer was instructed to procure his client’s appointment as the sole administrator of an estate,
the principal asset of which was a property. The lawyer was introduced to other beneficiaries as
the client’s friend, who was there to “help” the family.
– In the process of obtaining his client’s appointment as the sole administrator of the estate, the
lawyer had sought to allay the concerns expressed by other beneficiaries by reassuring them
that his client, as the sole administrator, would not be able to deal with the property without
their authorisation. This was one of the factors that led the court to find an implied retainer
between the lawyer and these other beneficiaries.
– As a result, the other beneficiaries renounced their claims to be co-administrators and signed a
document consenting to dispense with sureties to the administration bond. The lawyer’s client
subsequently mortgaged the house to secure a bank loan for his own purposes.
– The lawyer was charged with, amongst other things, failing to discharge his duties as a solicitor for
the estate to the beneficiaries and/or failing to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries, in that
he subordinated the interests of the beneficiaries to the interests of his clients.
– The court held that an advocate and solicitor could be guilty of unprofessional conduct with
respect to third parties with whom he has no contractual relationship or legal relationships
(although the court did find an implied retainer arising between the lawyer and the other
beneficiaries on the facts).

Unfair advantage
8(3)(a) – A legal practitioner “must not take unfair advantage of any person”

Carolyn Tan Beng Hui v The Law Society of Singapore [1999] SGHC 23
Copying a letter of demand sent to a third party to the third party’s bankers to exert undue pressure on
the third party was held to be a potential breach of the rule against taking “unfair advantage”.

Fraudulent or deceitful
8(3)(b) – A legal practitioner “must not act towards any person in a way which is fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise
contrary to the legal practitioner’s position as a member of an honourable profession.”

When asked about a client’s creditworthiness, a solicitor’s failure to inform a third party of his client’s bankrupt
status, which she was aware of, was held to be a wrongful reference, which would be a breach of PCR 2015 rule
8(3)(b).
Wong Juan Swee v The Law Society of Singapore [1994] 3 SLR(R) 619
• The lawyer had been asked by the complainant, a dealer’s representative, about the creditworthiness of
one Francis who had placed large orders for shares with the complainant. Francis was a friend of the
lawyer’s brother. Francis was also an undischarged bankrupt, and the lawyer knew of this fact as she had

56
 acted for the petitioning creditor in Francis’s bankruptcy petition.
• However, the lawyer did not inform the complainant of Francis’s bankrupt status, and had also written to
the complainant’s company to request that he be given more time to pick up the shares.
• The lawyer was found to have been guilty of giving a wrongful reference and a fine was imposed on her.

Letters of demand- what can be claimed

8(4) – “When a legal practitioner issues a letter of demand, the legal practitioner must not demand in the letter
anything that is not recoverable by due process of law.”
• For example, where a solicitor is instructed to collect a simple debt in a letter of demand, it is improper to
claim for the costs of the letter because at that stage, it cannot be said that the costs of the letter are
properly recoverable in law.
• An exception may be made where such costs are contractually provided for.
• For more details, see Paragraph 54 of the Law Society Practice Directions 2013 (which sets out guidelines
for what can and cannot be claimed in Letters of Demand)

Letters of demand- Improper threats of criminal proceedings

8(5) – “Where any civil claim made against a person, by a client of a legal practitioner, remains unsatisfied, the
legal practitioner must not threaten the institution of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the
person.”

Guide to Professional Conduct for Advocates and Solicitors (2011) published by The Law Society of Singapore (at
page 92)
• It is improper to communicate in writing or otherwise a threat of criminal proceedings in order to achieve
a stated objective in any circumstances.
• However, it is not improper for a solicitor to communicate with a party requiring him to comply with a
particular order, enjoinment or statutory provision, and state that failure to do so will result in that party
being liable to an offence or penalty. It is further permissible for the solicitor to identify the offence or
penalty under reference.

The Law Society of Singapore v Terence Tan Bian Chye [2007] SGDSC 10
• A lawyer had sent a letter accusing opposing counsel of deception; of misleading the court; and
threatened to report the matter to the Law Society. The lawyer had also sent to the opposing party and
various other related parties some 27 letters which alleged the commission of criminal offences; contained
threats to take criminal proceedings; and which contained statements or asked questions which were
offensive, scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify or annoy the addressees.
• The lawyer was found guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and ordered to pay a
penalty.

Offensive letters
Apart from his obligations in Rule 8(5) in the LPPCR, an advocate and solicitor must also not be offensive in his
letters or oral communications whomever they are addressed to.

See Guide to Professional Conduct for Advocates and Solicitors (2011) published by The Law Society of Singapore
(at page 93), cited in paragraph 27 of PDR 2013

57
 – “It has been held unbefitting conduct for a solicitor to write offensive letters to clients of other
solicitors, to Government departments and to the public.”
– “The use of insulting language and indulging in acrimonious correspondence are neither in the
interests of the client nor conducive to the maintenance of the good name of the profession.”

The Law Society of Singapore v Chew Kia Heng [2001] SGDSC 3

– A lawyer had sent a letter to an opposing party demanding the opposing party to accept service of
process at his office reception area within 5 minutes from the receipt of the letter, under a threat
of substituted service by publication in newspapers. The lawyer had also wrote a letter making a
veiled threat to embarrass the opposing party by stating that his employers would be notified
about his refusal to accept service of process.
– The lawyer was reprimanded for writing offensive letters and making unreasonable demands.

Mediators- Prohibitions on acting

8(6) – “A legal practitioner who has acted as a mediator in a mediation must not subsequently act for any party to
the mediation in relation to —
(a) the subject of the mediation; or
(b) any matter discussed during the mediation..”

MISCONDUCT IN PERSONAL CAPACITY

A legal professional must not commit misconduct in his personal capacity.

Offensive blog posts- struck off the rolls!

Law Society of Singapore v Gopalan Nair (alias Pallichadath Gopalan Nair) [2011] 4 SLR 607

• In considering whether the solicitor has committed unbefitting conduct for the purposes of the
Legal Profession Act, the courts will consider a lawyer’s misconduct not just in the professional
capacity but also in the personal capacity
• The solicitor in this case wrote offensive blog posts criticising members of the judiciary
• He was found guilty of unbefitting conduct and was struck off the rolls
Criminal dishonesty OVERSEAS- Struck off the rolls
Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean [2010] 3 SLR 560
• The courts will take into consideration a legal professional’s convictions in a foreign jurisdiction
when determining if he has committed “misconduct” for the purposes of the Legal Profession Act,
especially when the criminal offence involves an element of dishonesty
• The solicitor was found guilty of dishonesty and was struck off the rolls
Belly dancing request and verbal advances- Reprimand
The Law Society of Singapore v Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh [2010] SGDT 5
• In this case, the solicitor asked his client to perform a belly dance for him whilst visiting
her premises in a professional capacity. He also made other inappropriate verbal
advances.
• The solicitor was found guilty of unbefitting conduct and was reprimanded. He did not
receive further disciplinary action

58
PART V. Supervision of staff, use of titles and executive
appointments
(1) RESPONSIBILITY FOR STAFF OR LAW PRACTICE (Rule 32 PCR)
Supervision
PCR Rule 32
A legal practitioner must, regardless of his designation in a law practice, exercise proper supervision
over the staff working under him.

PARALEGALS
Law Society Practice Circular on Supervision of Paralegals, 6 June 2014
1. For the purposes of this Circular, the term “paralegal” shall mean and include a legal executive, legal secretary
or legal clerk and any other employee of a law practice, who performs paralegal functions and assists a solicitor as
a paralegal, who does not have in force a practising certificate and is without regard to the designation of such
employee.
.
.
Note: The sections of the PCR cited here are OUTDATED. See below for the relevant provisions. Where there are
none, they may have been removed.
4. While paralegals working at law practices in Singapore are currently not regulated under the LPA, r 8(1) of the
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (“PCR”) requires a solicitor to exercise proper supervision over his
employees and other staff at all times. (note: this rule has vanished in the 2015 PCR)

5. Accordingly, solicitors and law practices employing paralegal staff should ensure compliance with the following
guidelines, to appropriately abide by the provisions of the LPA and the PCR:

5.1 A solicitor shall ensure that he remains responsible for all professional actions of a paralegal and a
paralegal performs his/her duties, at all times, under the constant supervision of the solicitor in relation
to such paralegal’s involvement in any legal matter.

5.2 Solicitors should take due care to ensure that paralegals are not allowed to make any unsupervised
appearance before any Court in Singapore including hearings in Judges’ chambers and at Pre-Trial
Conferences.

5.3 As a general principle, paralegals have no right of audience before any Court in Singapore including
open Court sessions, hearings in Judges’ chambers and Pre-Trial Conferences. Paralegals are, however,
permitted to attend chambers and open Court sessions to record notes of hearing, with the prior leave
of the Court. In the event the paralegal accompanies the supervising solicitor to Court hearings and seeks
to be in attendance at any hearing, it is the responsibility of the supervising solicitor to ensure that the
Court is fully made aware of the status of the paralegal before the commencement of proceedings. Even
in such cases, paralegals are not permitted to occupy the front row seating area or any other seating
area normally reserved for solicitors in the Court without the permission of the Court.

5.4 Solicitors must ensure that paralegals refrain from engaging in any form of unsupervised conduct in
litigation matters. In criminal matters, solicitors should restrict paralegals from engaging in any
unsupervised discussions with enforcement agencies, police officers or prosecutors. For the avoidance of
doubt, it is hereby clarified that paralegals are permitted to take statements from and interview clients or

59
 witnesses in their client’s case in the absence of the supervising solicitor provided that no advice is
rendered on such occasions.

5.5 Paralegals, by way of their association with the supervising solicitor, shall also be subject to r 67 PCR
(now r13(6)), which provides that a solicitor shall not give a statement to the press or media whether on
behalf of the client or otherwise, which may amount to contempt of Court or which is calculated to
interfere with the fair trial of a case which has not been concluded. Solicitors are required to ensure that
their paralegal staff are made aware of their obligations under r 67 PCR (now r13(6)). (cannot give sub
judice statements. Note- new rule on contempt is r13(6) PCR)
BUT: Paragraph 9 of Practice Circular (March 2015):
Paragraph 5.5 should not be read as suggesting that paralegals are themselves regulated by
provisions of the PCR, but rather that the relevant supervising solicitor may be responsible for any
statement given by his or her paralegal to the press or media on behalf of the client or otherwise
that is regulated by r 67 PCR (now r13(6)). Accordingly, solicitors should ensure that paralegals
under their supervision are aware of the content and substance of r 67 PCR(now r13(6)), as well as
relevant materials published after the Circular was issued, such as the General Notice issued by the
Attorney-General’s Chambers dated 1 October 2014 entitled: Understanding Legal Processes:
Publication of Affidavits

5.6 Section 77 LPA provides that no solicitor shall wilfully and knowingly undertake any action that may
amount to enabling an unauthorised person to practise law in Singapore. Since a paralegal falls within
the ambit of the term “unauthorised person” under the said section any action contrary to Section s 77
LPA may warrant a disciplinary proceeding against the solicitor.

While these guidelines relate primarily to paralegals assisting solicitors having conduct of litigation matters before
the Courts, they are generally applicable to paralegals assisting solicitors in all areas of practice such as corporate
secretarial, conveyancing and intellectual property matters (Commentaries on the Law Society of Singapore’s
Practice Circular on the Supervision of Paralegals (Law Gazette, March 2015))

BUT: For PTCs, if the solicitor is absent,

Supreme Court Practice Directions, amendment 3 2012
If the solicitor cannot make it, the solicitor can request that the OPPOSING COUNSEL MENTIONS on his behalf.
However, the parties HAVE to agree beforehand to the motion that the parties are seeking. The paralegal from the
absentee solicitor’s firm is then allowed to represent the firm, but ONLY to RECORD the proceedings at the PTC.

However, this is not allowed for hearings where the absent solicitor is applying for adjournment (cos there is the
possibility that the judge may not grant it).

UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
Paralegals, Part B students and support staff are unauthorized persons and cannot act as an advocate or
solicitor.
• Solicitors must be mindful that paralegals and support staff employed by a law practice are not allowed to
practise law as an advocate and solicitor.
• Paralegals do fall within the category of “unauthorised persons”.

SECTION 32 LPA
• A person is an unauthorised person if his name is not on the roll and/or he does not have in force a
practising certificate.
• An unauthorised person can neither practice as an advocate or solicitor nor do any act as an advocate
or solicitor.
• Note: Part B students and practice trainees are “unauthorised persons”.

60
 SECTION 33 LPA
33.—(1) Any unauthorised person who —
(a) acts as an advocate or a solicitor or an agent for any party to proceedings, or, as such advocate,
solicitor or agent —
(i) sues out any writ, summons or process;
(ii) commences, carries on, solicits or defends any action, suit or other proceeding in the
name of any other person, or in his own name, in any of the courts in Singapore; or
(iii) draws or prepares any document or instrument relating to any proceeding in the courts in
Singapore; or
(b) wilfully or falsely pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that
he is duly qualified or authorised to act as an advocate or a solicitor, or that he is recognised by law as so
qualified or authorised
shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) offer or agree to place at the disposal of any other person the services of an advocate and solicitor, for
or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward.

Exceptions to “unauthorised persons”

DPPs, the Official Assignee, Legal Aid ppl, and anyone involved in arbitration are NOT bound by the prohibitions
in s32 and s33.

Section 34 LPA
The prohibitions in section 33 does not extend, inter alios, to:
a) the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General or any other person acting under the authority of either of
them;
b) the Public Trustee or Official Assignee acting in the course of their duties under any law relating to
those offices; and
c) the Director of Legal Aid and Assistant Directors of Legal Aid acting in the course of their duties under
the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act.
The prohibitions in Sections 32 and 33 shall not extend to:
a) any arbitrator or umpire lawfully acting in any arbitration proceedings;
b) any person representing any party in arbitration proceedings; or
c) the giving of advice, preparation of documents and any other assistance in relation to or arising out of
arbitration proceedings except for the right of audience in court proceedings.

Assisting unauthorised persons

These sections prevent solicitors from lending their name to allow unauthorized persons to act as an advocate
and solicitor (including people who are struck from the rolls)

Section 77 LPA
A solicitor shall not:
a) wilfully and knowingly act as an agent for any unauthorised person in any legal proceeding;
b) permit his name to be made use of in any such proceeding or matter upon the account or for the profit of
any unauthorised person;
c) send any process to any unauthorised person, or do any other act enabling any unauthorised person to
appear, act or practise or purport to practise in any respect as a solicitor in any such proceeding or matter;
or
d) authorise any unauthorised person to operate any bank account in the name of, and maintained by, the
solicitor or the Singapore law practice in which he practises.

61
Paragraph 24, PDR 2013
• A solicitor should not assist unauthorised persons who are not employed by his law practice to commit a
breach of Section 33 by merely signing or “lending his name” to documents prepared by such
unauthorised persons.

Consequence for breach of s77 LPA

• The solicitor who has acted in contravention of this section may face disciplinary proceedings; and
• The unauthorised person who was enabled by a solicitor to act or practise or purport to practise as a
solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.

(2) DESCRIPTIONS AND TITLES

A legal practitioner who is an advocate and solicitor must not describe himself or herself in connection with his or
her profession as anything other than:
a) an advocate and solicitor;
b) a lawyer;
c) a legal consultant (if qualified to be one);
d) a Commissioner for Oaths or Notary Public (if appointed as one); or
e) such other description as may be approved by the Council from time to time.

(3) EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS

PROHIBITED EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS IN BUSINESS
Rule 34 PCR 2015
(1) A legal practitioner must not accept any executive appointment associated with any of the following
businesses, inter alia:
a) any business which detracts from, is incompatible with, or derogates from the dignity of, the legal
profession;
b) any business which materially interferes with his primary occupation as a lawyer, his availability to
those who may seek his services as a lawyer, or the representation of his clients; or
c) any business which is likely to unfairly attract business in the practice of law.
d) …
e) …
f) …

CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT IN BUSINESS

Rule 34 PCR 2015
(2) Subject to Section 34(1) PCR, a legal practitioner may accept an executive appointment in a business entity
which does not provide any legal services or law-related services, if all of the conditions set out in the
Second Schedule are satisfied.

Second Schedule PCR 2015

Some of the conditions in Second Schedule PCR for accepting an executive appointment in a business entity
include:
a) the business entity must not be held out or described in such a way as to suggest that the business
entity is a law practice, or that any legal practitioner in the business entity provides services, carries
on business or is employed, as a regulated legal practitioner; and
b) the involvement of the legal practitioner in the business must not impair, and must not be in conflict

62
 with, the legal practitioner’s duties in the law practice in which the legal practitioner practises, or to
any client of that law practice.

Housing Agent and Estate Agent PROHIBITED

Paragraph 81, PDR 2013
• A practising solicitor is not permitted to carry on the business of a housing agent or an estate agent (as
defined in section 3(1) of the Estate Agents Act) in tandem with that of being a lawyer as doing so would be
incompatible with the legal profession.
Due cause Section 83(2)(i) LPA
• Due cause for disciplinary action may be shown by proof that an advocate and solicitor carries on by himself
or any person in his employment any trade, business or calling that detracts from the profession of law or is
in any way incompatible with it, or is employed in any such trade, business or calling.

63
PART VI. Publicity and Prohibition against Touting
(1) PUBLICITY (Rules 37, 41-49 PCR)

Principle guiding interpretation of this Part

37.
The following principle guides the interpretation of this Part.
Principle
A legal practitioner must not engage in publicity, or procure any work or engagement for himself or herself, the law
practice in which he or she practices or any other person, in circumstances which affect the dignity and standing of
the legal profession.

Publicity to be in accordance with these Rules

41. Subject to these Rules, a legal practitioner may —
(a) publicise the legal practitioner’s practice, or the practice of a law practice of which the legal practitioner is a
director, a partner or an employee; or
(b) allow the employees of the law practice to do so.

General responsibilities
42.
(1) A legal practitioner must ensure that any publicity relating to the legal practitioner’s practice complies with these
Rules, whether that publicity is by the legal practitioner or by any other person on the legal practitioner’s behalf.

(2) Where a legal practitioner becomes aware of any impropriety in any publicity relating to the legal practitioner’s
practice or the practice of a law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director or a partner, the legal
practitioner must use the legal practitioner’s best endeavours to procure the rectification or withdrawal of the
publicity, and to prevent the recurrence of the impropriety.

(3) Where the Council determines that any publicity relating to the practice of a legal practitioner or law practice is
contrary to any provision of these Rules, the Council may order the legal practitioner or law practice to alter,
withdraw, remove or discontinue the publicity or cause the publicity to be altered, withdrawn, removed or
discontinued.

(4) A legal practitioner or law practice must ensure that any publicity relating to the practice of the legal practitioner
or law practice does not make use of the armorial bearings of the Society.

Responsibilities relating to publicity within Singapore

43. Comparisons, success rates etc
(1) When a legal practitioner publicises the legal practitioner’s practice or the practice of a law practice of which the
legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee, the legal practitioner must ensure that —
(a) any claim to expertise or specialisation can be justified;
(b) the publicity does not make any direct or indirect mention of —
i. any past case in which, or any client for whom, the legal practitioner, the law practice or any member
of the law practice had acted, if the provision of any such information will result in a breach of any
duty of confidentiality owed to a client or former client of the legal practitioner or law practice; or
ii. the success rate of the legal practitioner, the law practice or any member of the law practice; and
(c) the publicity does not make any comparison or criticism in relation to the fees charged, or the quality of the

64
 services provided, by any other legal practitioner or law practice.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the following factors may be taken into account in justifying any claim to
expertise or specialisation:
(a) academic qualifications;
(b) experience;
(c) proportion of working time involved;
(d) level of success achieved;
(e) complexity of law and practice;
(f) significance of the matters involving the legal practitioner or the law practice of which the legal practitioner
is a director, a partner or an employee;
(g) assessment by peers.

Judges
(3) When a legal practitioner who practised in a law practice is appointed to the judiciary —
(a) any publicity relating to the law practice must not refer to the legal practitioner’s appointment to the
judiciary during the tenure of the legal practitioner’s judicial office; but
(b) this paragraph does not prohibit the inclusion of the legal practitioner’s name in the publicity, if the name
appears as, or forms part of, the name of the law practice.

No touting (see also below on Rule 39)

(4) These Rules do not permit the doing of anything which may reasonably be regarded as touting by —
(a) a legal practitioner;
(b) a law practice; or
(c) a director, a partner or an employee of a law practice.

Misleading, deceptive, inaccurate or false, etc., publicity

44. Misleading, deceptive, inaccurate, UNDIGNIFIED, UNDESIRABLE MANNER
(1) A legal practitioner must not publicise the legal practitioner’s practice, or the practice of the law practice of which
the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee, in a manner which —
(a) is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or to otherwise bring the legal profession into
disrepute;
(b) may reasonably be regarded as being misleading, deceptive, inaccurate, false or unbefitting the dignity of
the legal profession; or
(c) the Council may determine to be an undesirable manner of publicising the practice of a legal practitioner or
law practice.

(2) For the purpose of these Rules, publicity is misleading, deceptive, inaccurate or false if —
(a) it contains a material misrepresentation;
(b) it omits to state a material fact;
(c) it contains any information which cannot be verified; or
(d) it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results that can be achieved by the legal practitioner
or the law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee.
Contributions to good causes
45. Charity events- publicity limited to name
(1) Subject to this rule —
(a) any legal practitioner or law practice may contribute to good causes, whether by way of donation,
sponsorship, subscription or the provision of free services; and
(b) any contribution made by the legal practitioner or law practice may be publicly acknowledged by the
recipient of the contribution.

65
(2) Where a legal practitioner or law practice contributes to any good cause, the legal practitioner or law practice
must take reasonable steps to ensure that any public acknowledgment of the contribution does not state any
information pertaining to the legal practitioner or law practice except —
(a) in the case of a contribution made by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner’s name, the fact that the
legal practitioner is a legal practitioner, and the name of the law practice of which the legal practitioner is
a director, a partner or an employee; and
(b) in the case of a contribution made by a law practice, the name of the law practice.

(3) A legal practitioner or law practice may endow prizes and scholarships at any school or educational institution,
and may be identified in the name of any prize or scholarship as the endower of the prize or scholarship.

(4) In this rule, “good cause” includes any registered charity and any other benevolent cause or cause concerned
with the promotion of education, sports or the arts.

Third-party publicity
46. Third party publicity allowed as long as long as in accordance with these Rules
Subject to the Act and these Rules —
(a) a legal practitioner may allow the legal practitioner’s practice or the practice of the law practice of which
the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee; and
(b) a law practice may allow its practice, to be publicised in, or in conjunction with, the publicity of any third
party, whether or not the party is a client of the legal practitioner or law practice.

Giving of free legal advice

47. Publicity during free legal clinics limited to name. No business cards or brochures! Cannot use this to solicit
clients! (clients thereafter ONLY pro-bono)
(1) A legal practitioner may give free legal advice to any person at or through any facility established with a view to
providing legal assistance to members of the public.

(2) In the course of giving such free legal advice, a legal practitioner must take reasonable steps to ensure that no
information pertaining to the legal practitioner is publicised except the legal practitioner’s name, the fact that the
legal practitioner is a legal practitioner, and the name of the law practice of which the legal practitioner is a
director, a partner or an employee.

(3) To avoid doubt, a legal practitioner must not in the course of giving the free legal advice referred to in paragraph
(1) —
(a) distribute any of the legal practitioner’s business cards or any brochure, leaflet or pamphlet relating to the
legal practitioner’s practice or the practice of the law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director, a
partner or an employee; or
(b) act for any person to whom the legal practitioner has given such free legal advice, unless the legal
practitioner acts for that person in a pro bono capacity.

Publicity outside Singapore

48. Publicity outside of Singapore allowed, not subject to the above restrictions. Only subject to laws of the foreign
country.
(1) A legal practitioner may publicise the legal practitioner’s practice, or the practice of the law practice of which the
legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee, in a country other than Singapore, and where the legal
practitioner does so, rules 43 to 47 do not apply.

66
(2) Where a legal practitioner publicises the law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an
employee in a country other than Singapore, the legal practitioner must ensure that the publicity is not conducted in
a manner that is contrary to the laws of that country.

Jurisdiction where publicity is conducted

49. Publicity is conducted in a jurisdiction as long as it is reasonably expected to be received or accessible, and not
incidental.
For the purposes of these Rules —
(a) publicity is conducted in a jurisdiction in which the publicity is reasonably expected to be received or
accessible in the normal course of events; and
(b) publicity is not conducted in a jurisdiction if the receipt of the publicity in the jurisdiction is incidental.

Miscelleneous PDRs for publicity (see folder for PDFs)

• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 66- ADVERTISEMENT AND MEDIA PUBLICITY
o Presenting a news show on radio or TV, ads in press or TV, are ok, subject to some conditions.
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 67- PUBLICITY BY SOLICITORS THROUGH PUBLIC APPEARANCES AND CONTRIBUTIONS
TO PUBLICATIONS
o Ok, subject to conditions
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 68- CORRESPONDENCES TO POTENTIAL CLIENTS WHERE SOLICITOR IS PERMITTED TO
ACT FOR MORE THAN ONE CLIENT IN A TRANSACTION
o Ok, but need to fill out prescribed form
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 70- THIRD PARTY PUBLICITY
o “The Council received feedback from members that they were being asked to hyperlink their websites
with their clients or to give information on their law firms or lawyers on internet sites of third parties”
o Also, complimentary advertising in newspaper
o Both ok, but subject to some caveats.
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 71- PRINTING OF NAMES ON ENVELOPES
o Nothing wrong with this
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 72- GREETING CARDS
o Nothing wrong with this either
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 74- DISTRIBUTION OF FLYERS OR LEAFLETS
o Mailers, flyers and brochures. Mostly prohibited, except at law firm’s own office
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 75- REFERRALS/ HYPERLINKING OF WEBSITES
o Websites (for example property agents’ websites) that hyperlink to law firms’ websites for the purposes
of assisting the agents’ potential clients are not prohibited, provided there is no form of financial
arrangement between the property agent and the law practice. However, the description of the
hyperlink must not mislead viewers by suggesting that the property agent is in a position to give legal
advice or that the law practice is formed by the property agent to provide legal consultation on the real
estate matters or that the viewer has to exclusively use the services of the law practice. Otherwise, this
may constitute an offence under section 33(1)(b) of the Act.
• PDR 2013, PARAGRAPH 76- IDENTIFICATION OF LAWYERS OR LAW FIRMS
o Rules regarding who can be named on a law firm’s letterheads, bills, and other stationery.

(2) TOUTING AND REFERRALS (39 and 40 PCR)

Touting and referrals
39. No touting
(1) A legal practitioner or law practice must not tout for business or do anything which is likely to lead to a

67
reasonable inference that the thing was done for the purpose of touting.

Referrals of business subject to STRICT RULES- Referral cannot affect advice to referred client.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), where there is reason to believe that a client is referred
to a legal practitioner or law practice by any other person, the legal practitioner or law practice —
(a) must maintain the independence and integrity of the legal profession, by not permitting the referror to
undermine the professional independence of the legal practitioner or law practice;
(b) must not reward the referror by the payment of any commission or other form of consideration;
(c) must not allow the referral to affect in any way the advice given to the client;
(d) must advise the client impartially and independently;
(e) must ensure that any wish to avoid offending the referror does not affect in any way the advice given to
the client;
(f) must ensure that the referror does not in any way influence any decision taken in relation to the nature,
style or extent of the practice of the legal practitioner or law practice; and
(g) must communicate directly with the client to obtain or confirm instructions when providing advice
and at all appropriate stages of the transaction. (see case below, LSS v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju
[2013])

CASES FOR REFERRALS

• Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye (2007))
o Procuring conveyancing work by offering monetary compensation to referrers
• Law Society of Singapore v Chong Wai Yen Michael [2012] 2 SLR 113
o Procuring conveyancing business by promise of payment of referral fees to real estate agents.
• Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju [2013] 3 SLR 875
o Responsibility to communicate directly with the client when the client is referred by a third party.
• Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey (1999)
o Payment to project management agent a fee/commission for procuring employment as solicitor
for project
• Law Society of Singapore v Yap Kok Kiong (2006)
o Gift vouchers
Sting operations
• Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis (2006)
o Attempt to procure conveyancing work by offering monetary reward to referrers (found guilty
for the entrapment operation)
• The Law Society of Singapore v Lillian Bay Puay Joo [2008] 2 SLR(R) 316
o Sting operations designed to obtain evidence of touting by law firms. Same series of cases as Phyllis Tan

Other prohibited procurement practices

Fee sharing with employee for bringing files from rival.

Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh (2001)
a. Former judge went into private practice, and employed a clerk in another firm, informing the clerk
that if he joined and brought all his files, he would get 10% of all professional fees collected on
those files.
b. HELD: Guilty. While the court noted that genuine payments for work done should not be penalised,
the court must be vigilant to ensure that the arrangement was not an attempt to get around the
prohibitions in ss 83(2)(d) and (e), LPA.
Agreement for referrals
40. Referrals must adhere to strict requirements in WRITING
(1) In addition to rule 39, when a legal practitioner or law practice enters into any agreement for the referral of
any conveyancing service, the legal practitioner or law practice must ensure that the agreement is made in

68
writing and contains the following terms:
(h) the referror undertakes in the agreement to comply with these Rules;
(i) the legal practitioner or law practice is entitled to terminate the agreement, if there is reason to believe
that the referror is in breach of any term of the agreement;
(j) any publicity of the referror (whether written or otherwise), which refers to any service that may be
provided by the legal practitioner or law practice, must not suggest any of the following:
a. that the conveyancing service is free;
b. that different charges are payable for the conveyancing service, depending on whether the client
instructs the legal practitioner or law practice;
c. that the availability or price of any other service offered by the referror, or by any party related to
the referror, is conditional on the client instructing the legal practitioner or law practice;
(k) the referror must not do anything to impair the right of the client not to appoint the legal practitioner
or law practice, and must not influence in any way the right of the client to appoint a legal practitioner
or law practice of the client’s choice.

(2) The legal practitioner or law practice must terminate the agreement, if —
(l) the referror is in breach of any term referred to in paragraph (1); or
(m) there is reason to believe that the legal practitioner or law practice is in breach of any such term.

(3) Where the legal practitioner or law practice has terminated an agreement under paragraph (2), the legal
practitioner or law practice —
(n) may continue to act in matters for which the legal practitioner or law practice was instructed prior to
the termination; but
(o) must not accept any further referrals from the referror.

(3) PROHIBITED BUSINESS, TRADE OR CALLING (Rule 38 PCR)

Prohibited business, trade or calling
38.
A legal practitioner or law practice must not engage in any business, trade or calling which —
(a) derogates from the dignity of the legal profession;
(b) is likely to unfairly attract business in the practice of law; or
(c) is prohibited by —
(i) the Act;
(ii) these Rules or any other subsidiary legislation made under the Act;
(iii) any practice directions, guidance notes and rulings issued under section 71(6) of the Act; or
(iv) any practice directions, guidance notes and rulings (relating to professional practice, etiquette, conduct
and discipline) issued by the Council or the Society.

Re An Advocate [1964] 1 MLJ 1

Advocate and solicitor suspended because he was engaged in the business of selling female clothing.

69
PART VII. Professional Fees and Solicitors’ Accounts
Rules
(1) CLIENT MONEY (Rule 16 PCR)
CATEGORIES OF ACCOUNTS
1. Client account
2. Conveyancing account
3. Office account
4. Trust account

DEFINITION OF CLIENT ACCOUNT

Either:
(a) A current or deposit account maintained in the name of a solicitor at a bank; or
(b) A deposit account maintained in the name of a solicitor with an approved finance company,
in the title of which account the word “client” appears (r 2, LPSAR)
Solicitor can keep more than 1 client account (r 3(2), LPSAR)

CATEGORIES OF MONEY
1. Client’s money
2. Conveyancing money
3. Anticipatory conveyancing money
4. Unclaimed conveyancing money
5. Trust money
6. Money in office account

DEFINITION OF CLIENT’S MONEY- R2, LPSAR

Money held or received by a solicitor on account of a person for whom he is acting (in relation to the holding or
receipt of such money) either as a solicitor, or in connection with his practice as a solicitor, an agent, a bailee or a
stakeholder or in any other capacity, other than —
Exceptions:
(a) money held or received on account of the trustees of a trust of which the solicitor is solicitor-trustee;
(b) money to which the only person entitled is the solicitor himself or, in the case of a firm of solicitors, one or
more of the partners in the firm; or
(c) conveyancing money or anticipatory conveyancing money.

Duties to the client in relation to client money – r 16 PCR

• Principle
- Duty to ensure that any money or other property which a client, with the agreement of the legal
practitioner, has entrusted with the legal practitioner, or has made the legal practitioner responsible
for, is held in a way that protects the interests of the client.
- This duty applies with the necessary modifications to a law practice.
• A legal practitioner:
- is accountable to the client (r 16(2) PCR).
- must promptly notify the client whenever the legal practitioner receives money (including
conveyancing money) or securities to be held on behalf of the client (r 16(3)(a) PCR).
- must expeditiously render statements of accounts when requested by the client (r 16(3)(b) PCR).
-

70
PUTTING MONEY IN
When to pay client’s money
• Pay into client account without delay (r 3(1), SAR).
- Erroneous deposit into office account is a breach of r 3(1) SAR (Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chwee
Wan Allan [2007] 4 SLR(R) 699)
• Exceptions where solicitor does not need to or must not pay into client account:
Rule 3 is subject to rule 9 which sets out certain situations where the solicitor is under no obligation to
pay, or is prohibited from paying, client’s money into the client account.

Where solicitor under no obligation to pay client’s money into client account

9.—
No obligations to pay into client account:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of these Rules, a solicitor shall not be under obligation to pay
into a client account client’s money held or received by him —
(a) in the form of cash, and is without delay paid in cash in the ordinary course of business to
the client or on his behalf to a third party;
(b) in the form of a cheque or draft which is endorsed over in the ordinary course of business
to the client or on his behalf to a third party and is not passed by the solicitor through a
bank account or an account with an approved finance company account; or
(c) which he pays into a separate bank account or into a separate account with an approved
finance company opened or to be opened in the name of the client or of some person
designated by the client in writing.
PROHIBITED from paying into client account
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of these Rules, a solicitor shall not pay into a client account,
money held or received by him —
(a) which the client for his own convenience requests the solicitor in writing to withhold
from such account;
(b) for or towards payment of a debt due to the solicitor from the client or in reimbursement
of money expended by the solicitor on behalf of the client; or
(c) which is expressly paid to him —
(i) on account of costs incurred, in respect of which a bill of costs or other written
intimation of the amount of the costs has been delivered for payment; or
(ii) as an agreed fee (or on account of an agreed fee) for business undertaken or to
be undertaken.
(3) Where money includes client’s money as well as money of the nature described in paragraph
(2), that money shall be dealt with in accordance with rule 5(3).

What to pay into Client Account

The following NEED to be put into a Client Account
• Client money.
• Moneys listed in r 4, LPSAR:
• Trust money (But see r2(a) exception where solicitor is the solicitor-trustee).
• Money to open/maintain account
• Money to replace sum withdrawn in breach of r 8(2)
- (r8(2) prohibits drawing money from client account by any means other than by cheque or
bank transfer. Specifically, money for reimbursement of expenses by solicitor on behalf of
the client or for the solicitor’s costs)
• Money received which solicitor entitled to split under r 5(3), but does not do so
- (5(3) deals with mone which consists of a mixture containing client’s or trust money

71
 • Money provided to solicitor under r 5(3) of Conveyancing Rules
- Sums under $5,000 for completion of any conveyancing transaction
• Money received by solicitor under r 5(4) of Conveyancing Rules
- Sums under $2,000 received from buyers in a collective sale
What not to pay
• Other than money under rr 3, 4 and 5 which a solicitor is required or permitted to pay into a client
account, no other money shall be paid into a client account: r 6(1).
• Where any money has been paid into a solicitor’s client account in contravention of r 6(1), he has a duty to
withdraw the money without delay on discovery: r 6(2).

Splitting of moneys- r5 LPSAR

• Special rules with regard to dealing with conveyancing money
• Solicitor cannot hold or receive any sum of money which consists of mixture of conveyancing money and
any other money.
• But if sum of money subsequently becomes mixed, solicitor must split conveyancing money from other
money and deal with conveyancing money as if he had received conveyancing money as separate sum of
money.
• If solicitor holds or receives sum of money which consists of mixture of client’s money or trust money or
both and any other money, he must split money and deal with each part separately OR pay client’s money
portion into client account.

TAKING MONEY OUT

What can be withdrawn? – r 7, LPSAR
• Client money (r 7(1)(a), LPSAR)
o Money properly required for a payment to or on behalf of the client.
o Money properly required in full or partial reimbursement of money expended by the solicitor on
behalf of the client.
o Money drawn on the client’s authority.
o Money to be transferred to another client account.
o Payment of invoiced lawyer’s fees

Money properly required for or towards payment of the solicitor’s costs where a bill of
costs or other written intimation of the amount of the costs incurred has been delivered
to the client and the client has been notified that money held for him will be applied
towards or in satisfaction of such costs.
• Trust money (r 7(1)(b), LPSAR)
• Money paid into account under r 4(b) or 5(3)(b) (r 7(1)(c), LPSAR)
• Money paid into account in breach of rule 6 (r 7(1)(d), LPSAR)
• A client account cannot be overdrawn (r 7(2), LPSAR)

How money may be drawn from the client account – r 8, LPSAR

• Except as provided under Rule 7, no withdrawal allowed without Council’s approval (r 8(1))
Transactions where cheque and bank transfers REQUIRED
• r 8(2): Cheque and bank transfers allowed for withdrawals under the following rules:
• 7(1)(a)(ii) Money drawn for REIMBURSEMENT of money expended by solicitor on BEHALF of the
client
• 7(1)(a)(iv) Invoiced lawyers fees (bill of costs delivered, client notified of transfer)
• 7(1)(c) Mixed moneys containing client’s or trust money, OR money BELOGNING TO THE
SOLICITOR that is required to open or maintain the account (Note: r8(3) further states that cash
and bearer cheques not allowed for this transaction)

72
 • 7(1)(d) Money paid into the account that should not have been paid into it (Note: r8(3) further
states that cash and bearer cheques not allowed for this transaction)

Cash and bearer cheques NOT ALLOWED (unless with leave of court)
• No withdrawal from client account by a cash cheque or a bearer cheque except with the leave of a Judge
of the High Court (r 8(4))

ATMs, telephone banking and online banking NOT ALLOWED

• No money shall be drawn from a client account by means of any —
• Automated teller machine;
• Telephone banking service; or
• Online banking service (r 8(4A)).

Cheque with 2 solicitors signatures required for sums exceeding $5,000

• Withdrawal > $5,000  only by cheque or other instruction signed by 2 solicitors unless independent
book-keeper engaged and sum withdrawn < $30,000 (rr 8(5) and 8(6)).
Even more requirements for sums exceeding $30,000
• Withdrawal ≥ $30,000  only if signed or authorised by 2 solicitors, who must:
• Have been in practice or employed as a Legal Service Officer at least 3 years in aggregate;
• Hold a current PC; and
• Not hold a conditional PC prohibiting signing cheques or instructions (r 8(7)).
• The duties and responsibilities of a second signatory are to ensure that withdrawals are made after
PROPER VERIFICATION. Steps are set out in PDR 2013, Paragraph 79(B) – Responsibilities and Duties of a
Second Signatory under the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (“Accounts Rules”) and Legal
Profession (Solicitors’ Trust Accounts) Rules (“Trust Accounts Rules”).

Transfers between accounts – r 10, LPSAR

• No sum must be transferred from Client A’s ledger account to Client B’s account unless permitted under
LPSAR or Conveyancing Rules.

Right of lien or set-off etc. not affected – r 15, LPSAR

• Solicitor’s recourse or right, whether by way of lien, set-off, counter-claim, charge or otherwise, against
moneys standing to the credit of a client account, is not affected.

KEEPING ACCOUNTING RECORDS

Keeping accounting records – rr 11, 11A, 12 LPSAR
• Must keep cash books, ledgers, journals and other books and accounts: r 11(1)-(3), LPSAR.
• Must reconcile balance of clients’ cash books and clients’ bank statements: r 11(4), LPSAR.
• Must preserve for at least 6 years all accounts, books, ledgers, records, bank statements: r 11(6), LPSAR.
• Unless authorised in writing by Council, no money may be withdrawn from bank account otherwise than
by solicitor who is permitted to sign cheque or other instruction effecting withdrawal: r 11(7), LPSAR.
• Council has power to require production of books of account (r 12, LPSAR).

Engagement of QUALIFIED book-keeper (r 11A, LPSAR)

• If a law practice does not wish or cannot implement a two lawyer signatory control to authorize payments
from the client account exceeding $5,000 but not exceeding $30,000, then that law practice must engage
an independent book-keeper approved by the Council.
• Book-keeper must have certain professional qualifications (see PDR 2013, Paragraph 107 – Engagement
of a book-keeper under the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules).

CASES

73
 Inadvertent failure to maintain any financial records or documents for a period of six months
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2005] 4 SLR(R) 32
• Solicitor failed to prepare and maintain any financial records or documents for a period of six months –
breach of r 11 LPSAR.
• However, no dishonesty involved nor were there any losses sustained by any of her clients.
• Indiscretions caused by human frailty.
• Penalty: Suspension for 1 year, undertaking not to resume practice as a sole practitioner without leave
of court.

DELIBERATE omission to maintain books

Law Society of Singapore v Tay Eng Kwee Edwin [2007] 4 SLR(R) 171
• Solicitor failed to maintain any of the books or accounts required by r 11, LPSAR for a period of one
year.
• Solicitor deliberately omitted to maintain his books and accounts and concealed his transgressions.
• Penalty: Struck off the roll of solicitors.

Failure to supervise client account, other partner absconded

Law Society of Singapore v Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin and another matter [2011] 2 SLR 620
• Reconciliation statements not prepared  breach of r 11(4), LPSAR.
• Could not produce the firm’s ledger  breach of rr 11(1) and 11(2).
• Failed to supervise Client Account.
• Abdicated responsibility to other partner who eventually absconded after misappropriating client’s
monies.
- This responsibility to supervise was a non-delegable responsibility of the equity partners.
- No obligation on salaried partner to supervise client account.
• Exceptional financial loss caused to clients.
• Penalty: Struck off the roll.

(2) PROFESSIONAL FEES AND COSTS (Rule 17 PCR)

COSTS- GENERAL
PCR 2015 RULE 17
Principle:
A legal practitioner must act in the best interests of his or her client and must charge the client fairly for work
done.
17(2) A legal practitioner —
(a) must not undertake work in a manner that unnecessarily or improperly increases the costs that are
payable to the legal practitioner;
(b) must, at all times, use the legal practitioner’s best endeavours to complete any work for his or her
client as soon as is reasonably possible;
(c) must explain clearly and properly to his or her client a proposal of settlement, or any other offer or
position taken by any other party, which affects the client;
(d) must, where his or her client does not understand English, ensure that any offer or proposal of
settlement is explained to the client in a language or dialect that the client understands;
(e) must, in an appropriate case, together with his or her client, evaluate whether any consequence of a
matter involving the client justifies the expense of, or the risk involved in, pursuing the matter; and
(f) must advise his or her client on the relevant legal issues in a matter, to enable the client to make an
informed decision about how to act in the matter.

REQUIRED COST ESTIMATES

74
 17(3) A legal practitioner must —
(a) inform his or her client of the basis on which fees for professional services will be charged, and of the
manner in which those fees and disbursements (if any) are to be paid by the client;
(b) inform the client of any other reasonably foreseeable payments that the client may have to make,
either to the legal practitioner or to any other party, and of the stages at which those payments are
likely to be required;
(c) to the extent reasonably practicable and if requested by the client, provide the client with estimates
of the fees and other payments referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively; and
(d) ensure that the actual amounts of the fees and other payments referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and
(b), respectively, do not vary substantially from the estimates referred to in sub-paragraph (c), unless
the client has been informed in writing of any changed circumstances.

REQUIRED ADVICE ON COST CONSEQUENCES OF WINNING OR LOSING

17(4) A legal practitioner must explain the following matters to his or her client at the beginning of a
contentious matter and at other appropriate stages in the matter:
(a) that in any event, the client is personally responsible for paying the client’s own solicitor and client
costs in full, regardless of any order for costs made against any other party;
(b) that in the event the client loses, the client may have to pay the client’s own costs, and the court
may order the client to pay the costs of one or more other parties as taxed or fixed by the court;
(c) that even if the client wins, the other party —
(i) may not be ordered to pay the full amount of the client’s own costs; and
(ii) may not be capable of paying what has been ordered.

Overcharging and taxation

REQUIRED ADVICE ON RIGHT TO TAXATION IF DISPUTE ARISES ON BILL
17(5) If a client of a legal practitioner disputes or raises a query about a bill of the legal practitioner in a
matter (whether or not contentious), the legal practitioner must inform the client in writing of the client’s
right to apply to the court to have the bill taxed or to review any fee agreement, unless the legal
practitioner believes that the client knows, or reasonably ought to know, of that right.

Advising client of the right to taxation can save your ass if you overcharged!
Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul [2011] 4 SLR 1184
• A solicitor who fails to advise his client of his right to have the solicitor’s bill of costs taxed does so at his
peril.
• At [33]: “[a] solicitor who offers to have his bill of costs taxed is ... unlikely to have the frame of mind or
intention to overcharge his client”.
• At [32]: “[e]ven where a bill rendered by a solicitor is prima facie excessive, any potentiality of the
solicitor’s conduct in rendering that bill being regarded as professional misconduct in the form of
overcharging can usually be remedied or ameliorated by an offer to have the bill taxed (if it is taxable)
under the Rules of Court ...”

Inform client of consequences of taxation – r 17(6)

17(6) If the client consents to taxation of a bill issued to the client, or the court orders the taxation of a bill issued
to the client, the legal practitioner must inform the client that:
(a) The delivery of a bill by the legal practitioner to the client doesn’t preclude the legal practitioner from
presenting a bill for a larger amount for taxation; and
(b) (b) Upon such a taxation, the legal practitioner is entitled to any amount allowed by the Registrar
even if that amount is more than the amount claimed in any bill.

No overcharging - r 17(7) PCR

17(7) A legal practitioner must not render a bill which constitutes overcharging, even if there is a fee agreement

75
that permits the charging of that amount

What constitutes overcharging – r 17(8), PCR

(8) There is overcharging if a reasonable legal practitioner cannot in good faith charge the fee, disbursement or
amount, taking into account:
(a) The legal practitioner’s standing and experience,
(b) The nature of the legal work concerned,
(c) The time necessary to undertake the legal work,
(d) The instructions and requirements of the client, and
(e) Any other relevant circumstances

Fees chargeable in a conflict situation – r 17(9) PCR

(9) Where, through a conflict of interest, a lawyer has recommended to a client that the client seek alternative
legal representation, the lawyer may charge only for those items which clearly need not be duplicated by the
alternative lawyer.

(3) CONTINGENCY FEES PROHIBITED (Rule 18 PCR)

LPA and PCR 2015 both have prohibitions against it:
S107(1)(b) LPA: No solicitor shall enter into any agreement by which he is retained or employed to
prosecute any suit or action or other contentious proceeding which stipulates for or contemplates
payment only in the event of success in that suit, action or proceeding.

S107(3) LPA: A solicitor shall, notwithstanding any provision of this Act, be subject to the law of
maintenance and champerty like any other person.

PCR r18. A legal practitioner or law practice must not enter into any negotiations with a client of the
legal practitioner or law practice —
(a) for an interest in the subject matter of litigation or of any other contentious proceedings; or
(b) except to the extent permitted by any applicable scale of costs, for remuneration proportionate
to the amount which may be recovered by the client in the proceedings.

Case of champertous arrangement- court proceeded with LPA charge (not PCR). Court noted a possible
exception for impecunious client.
Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] 4 SLR 91
[2]:“The Respondent was engaged by his client in respect of a claim for personal injuries. The
injuries were sustained in Queensland, Australia, and the claim was to be brought there.”
“The sole charge proceeded with by the Law Society against the Respondent was one of entering
into a champertous agreement which provided for payment to the Respondent of either 30% or
40% of the amount recovered in respect of his client’s claim for personal injuries (the actual
percentage payable to the Respondent would depend on the amount recovered).”
• Court looked at s107(1)(b) and s107(3) of LPA, and proceeded with that charge. Did not
proceed with PCR provisions, though the Court of Three Judges did observe that the (then)
r37 against champertous transactions had been breached.
Rationale behind s107 and r37:
[42]: “The traditional rationale was that such arrangements would tempt the champertous
maintainer to subvert the course of justice”
[45]: “One of the key elements in effectively representing a client’s interest is the ability of
the lawyer to maintain a sufficient sense of detachment so as to be able to discharge his duty to
the court”

76
 Exception to the rule against champerty:
[2]:“… for the sake of clarity, we should touch on one aspect of this issue which did not directly
arise in our case … it would be permissible and even honourable for an Advocate and Solicitor to
act for an impecunious client in the knowledge that he would likely only be able to recover his
appropriate fees or disbursements if the client were successful in the claim and could pay him
out of those proceeds or if there was a costs order obtained against the other side.” [emphasis in
original]

(4) SHARING FEES WITH UNAUTHORISED PERSONS (Rule 19 PCR)

R19 PCR prohibits a legal practitioner from sharing his fees with or paying commission to any “unauthorized
person” for any legal work performed by the legal practitioner.

Definition of “unauthorized persons”- LPA s32(2)

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person is an unauthorised person if —
(a) his name is not on the roll;
(b) he does not have in force a practising certificate; or
(c) being an advocate and solicitor who practises in a Joint Law Venture or its constituent foreign law practice,
a Qualifying Foreign Law Practice or a licensed foreign law practice, he practises Singapore law otherwise
than in accordance with Part IXA and any rules made under section 130W.

77