EPR VidLec4 - Legal Practitioner Conflicts PDF

00:01 This series of slides will deal with the conflict between a legal practitioner or law practice and the client. 00:13 First, an overview. These rules are found at 22 to 25 of the professional conduct rules. Rule 22 first sets out the guiding principles, followed by the prohibition against co...

00:01 This series of slides will deal with the conflict between a legal practitioner or law practice and the client. 00:13 First, an overview. These rules are found at 22 to 25 of the professional conduct rules. Rule 22 first sets out the guiding principles, followed by the prohibition against conflict of interest. Thereafter, rules 23 to 25 deal specifically with prohibited borrowing transactions, purchases from clients, 00:41 and gifts from clients. 00:47 What are the guiding principles? A legal practitioner owes duties of loyalty and confidentiality to his client. 00:57 The Lord practice of course owes similar duties to its client. And so both the practitioner and the practice must act prudently to avoid any compromise of the relationship with the client by reason of a conflict or a potential conflict with the interests of the client. 01:21 The conflict here is not one that is owed to third parties, but is with the interest of the law practice and the legal practitioner. 01:34 And so the legal practitioner or law practice must not act for a client if there is, or there may reasonably be expected to be, a conflict between the duty to serve the best interest of the client and the interest of the legal practitioner and law practice. 01:56 It is not limited to the legal practitioner alone, but also to the immediate family members of the legal practitioner. 02:06 If a legal practitioner or practice has an interest in any matter entrusted by a client, and it is adverse to the client\'s interest, the legal practitioner and law practice must withdraw from representing the client. 02:24 It is possible to continue if there is full and frank disclosure to the client of this adverse interest, the client is advised to obtain independent legal advice, it is ensured that the client is not under an impression that his interests are protected, and the client gives informed consent in writing. 02:51 In any other case, the legal practitioner or practice must withdraw unless full and frank disclosure is given and the client gives informed consent in writing. 03:07 Now let\'s look at some examples. The first is a case of Law Society of Singapore versus Loh Yong Sen. In this case, the respondent lawyer was engaged by the complainant and his wife to act in a convening transaction. The respondent engaged a freelance convening secretary, X, to undertake searches and requisitions in relation to convening matters. 03:37 Ex billed for his services through a business known as HBS, which was owned by the respondent lawyer\'s brother. The complainant was unhappy with the respondent lawyer\'s bill and lodged a complaint. The respondent\'s lawyer was found guilty of acting in conflict of interest or alternatively failing to disclose the interests of his brother in the matter entrusted to him by his client. 04:07 The respondent lawyer was also guilty of overcharging. 04:13 He then had to show cause. 04:17 The Court of Three Judges gave guidance on the matter and held that an interest in any matter does not include an interest in the fees charged, and the matter must refer to the substantive matter entrusted by the client. It is obvious that this ought to be the case, because solicitors always have an interest in the fees that they charge otherwise, and would fall foul of this rule. 04:46 The Respondent Lawyers\' decision the Court held to engage the services of X did not, per se, raise any problem of conflict, and indeed it is not uncommon for solicitors to outsource services provided that the client\'s interest is not compromised. If there had been no overcharging, the appointment of X, the convincing service provider, would have been uneventful and irreproachable. 05:16 And even if the respondent lawyer had been overcharging, he would be guilty of a breach of his duty of care, but not for acting in conflict, and therefore the respondent lawyer was acquitted. The next case is the case of Thanh Khet Khun and Arjun Pramaman Samthani. The plaintiff there sued the defendant for damages, namely solicitor client costs incurred by the plaintiff. 05:46 The second defendant challenged the reasonableness of costs, and sought an injunction to restrain the plaintiff\'s solicitors from acting for the plaintiff on the basis that the issue of reasonableness of the costs created a conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the plaintiff\'s solicitors. There the court held that the rule was for the protection of the client, and the client must be a degrieved party. 06:16 In this case, it would be a matter then between the plaintiff and his own solicitors, and it is not for third parties to intervene. Accordingly, an injunction on this ground was dismissed. 06:32 We now look at Law Society of Singapore vs Uday Kumar. The complainant and ex-husband contacted a housing agent for the sale of their flat. The agent worked in a company that was 49% owned by ex, who was the sole proprietor of a licensed moneylender. The complainant made known to the agent of her need for \$10,000 to settle debts. 06:59 The agent then introduced the complainant and the ex-husband to ex, who agreed to extend a loan, if the complainant appointed the respondent lawyer for the sale. The complainant and her ex-husband then signed various documents. These included the authorisation for the respondent\'s firm to act in the sale of the flat, documentation of an additional loan of \$9,000 to the complainant from the moneylender, 07:27 and authorizing the respondent\'s firm to pay the sum of \$19,000 plus interest to the moneylender from the proceeds of sale. When the sale was completed, the complainant revoked the respondent firm\'s authority to deal with the proceeds. The respondent\'s firm then applied to court for the conflicting claims of the proceeds to be resolved. The moneylender sued the complainant, and a settlement was reached. 07:56 where the complainant paid \$10,000. The complainant complained. The respondent lawyer was found guilty, among other things, for failing to advance the complainant\'s interests unaffected by his own interests and the interests of the agent, the agent\'s company, or the moneylender. The court of three judges held that although it is possible that an advocate and solicitor could find himself in a conflict of interest situation, 08:26 via client with no third party involved, but because the charge brought against the respondent lawyer envisaged a third party, and so it would be necessary to identify the third party. Having looked at the evidence, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent lawyer had a relationship with X and the licensed moneylender, or that he turned a blind eye to the loan transactions. 08:55 advance the interests of the moneylender. There was also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent lawyer knew that X was a 49% owner of the estate company, that it was in the agent\'s interest to recommend the complainant to X, and that X told the complainant that she had to appoint the respondent lawyer. Having examined all the relevant evidence, 09:22 the court found there was simply no basis to conclude that there was a conflict of interest situation and the respondent lawyer was acquitted. 09:33 The court went on to say that had the respondent lawyer known or turned a willful blind eye to the circumstances where concerns of a potential conflict of interest would reasonably have been raised, the respondent lawyer would have been guilty. 09:52 turning now to a similar case of Law Society of Singapore and Tan Pui Keang. The complainant there appointed an estate agent to sell the flat. The agent said that they had to buy a new flat before selling the old one, and the complainant did so. The complainant needed money for a new flat, and so the agent introduced the complainant to a licensed moneylender. The moneylender agreed to extend a loan. 10:19 condition that documents were signed at the moneylenders\' lawyers\' office. The amount on the documentation was less than the amount disbursed. The complainant went to the respondent lawyers\' office, accompanied by a second estate agent. The complainant signed the documents, including one appointing ex as their attorney in the sale. After the flat was sold, 10:45 The respondent asked the complainant to sign a statutory declaration authorizing payments to the second estate agent, the second estate agent\'s company, the moneylender, a second moneylender, the respondent\'s firm, as well as a third party. The complainant complained. The respondent was convicted of placing himself in a position of actual or potential conflict of interest by failing to inform the complainant. 11:15 of his prior and existing relationships with the Second Estate Company and Moneylender. The Court of Three Judges examined the evidence and found that there was an intricate web of relationships between almost all the parties named in the statutory declaration. The respondent lawyer had acted for the Second Estate Agent and Moneylender previously, and they in turn 11:43 The second moneylender was taken over by the manager of the second estate agent\'s company. Because of all of these underlying facts, the court found that the respondents\' failure to inquire and or advise the complainant about the basis and or reasons why payments of a peculiar nature were being made to the respondents\' other standing clients appeared to be because 12:11 He placed his own interest in receiving future referrals and the interests of the second estate agent company and moneylender ahead of the complainant client\'s interests. As a result, the respondent lawyer was suspended for two years. Another case to look at is the case of Ho Con Kim and Betsy Lim. Wong, a lawyer, acted for Ho in the transaction that gave rise to the dispute. 12:41 Ho sued Lim, the law firm and the bank. Ponyar, another lawyer, was Ho\'s counsel in the High Court suit. The High Court dismissed her claim. Ponyar and Wong were ordered to pay the costs payable by Ho to the law firm and bank, on the ground that they had improperly and unreasonably joined these parties to the suit. Ho appealed against the dismissal of her claim against Lim and the bank. 13:11 Ho\'s appeal was allowed. Ponyer and Wong appealed against the court\'s order, which was also allowed since it was not improper or unreasonable to have joined the law firm and the bank. The court observed, however, that Ponyer and Wong should not have acted for Ho because they had a personal interest in the case as their firm acted for Ho in the transaction that led to the dispute. And prima facie, the problem could be said to have been caused. 13:41 by the way Wong had handled the matter. They should have discharged themselves from acting from home and advised her to seek independent legal advice. Another example is the case of Law Society of Singapore and Singham Dennis. There, the court observed that personal and sexual relationships between solicitors and their clients are clearly wrong, and that personal service in a professional relationship 14:07 must be distinguished from getting involved in the personal lives of the clients. If solicitors become too involved in the client\'s personal lives during the existence of the solicitor-client relationship, they may find themselves placed in a position of conflict of interest, and the client\'s interests may be seriously prejudiced. 14:28 Similarly, a guidance note by the Law Society on providing welfare assistance to clients explained that where a law practice lends money to its clients who are foreign workers on special passes pursuing claims to help them meet their daily living expenses, such a situation would place a personal conflict of interest between the lawyer and the client because there will be a creditor 14:56 and the debt would only be repaid if the client\'s claim was settled or successfully recovered. And certainly that would place the lawyer in a conflict of interest situation with his client. Turning now to a particular type of situation where there may be a conflict of interest is the prohibited borrowing transaction. The case of Law Society of Singapore and Christopher Yub illustrates this. 15:25 The respondent lawyer was representing his nephew, who was incarcerated in Indonesia. The respondent requested a loan from his nephew, and he did not advise his nephew to obtain independent legal advice before granting the loan. The respondent lawyer did not repay the loan, and the nephew complained. The respondent lawyer was found guilty of entering into a prohibited borrowing transaction. The Court of Three Judges held 15:53 that a client is vulnerable via solicitor because the solicitor enjoys a position of influence over the client. A client may find it difficult to deny a loan simply because of the trust and confidence he has reposed in the solicitor, and where a client has suffered loss as a result, that is an aggravating factor. In this case, the respondent lawyer was suspended for two years. 16:23 We now turn to the case of Wee Soon Kim Anthony and Law Society of Singapore. The complainant engaged the respondent lawyer and discharged him, subsequently. A complaint was made, among other things, that the respondent lawyer had borrowed money from the complainant. For this breach, the inquiry committee fined the respondent lawyer \$2,000. The inquiry committee also made a recommendation. 16:52 which the Law Society accepted, to exercise its power to examine the loan transaction on the following basis. First, the loan was made by the complainant to the respondent on account of their long-standing friendship at the bar. There was no evidence that the respondent exercised undue influence or took advantage of the complainant. The complainant also lodged the complaint two years after the loan was made. 17:22 And the complainant must or should have been fully aware of the prohibition, because after all the complainant was a lawyer of considerable legal and commercial experience himself. The complainant was dissatisfied and appealed. The court held that as the loan transaction was exempted, the substratum of the complaint failed. Further, the complainant could not appeal, but only seek judicial review of the decision to exempt. 17:53 The next case is Law Society of Singapore and Thirumuthi. 17:59 The complainant claimed that he had lent \$19,000 to the respondent lawyer. The complainant also claimed that at the time of the complaint, the sum of \$10,500 remained outstanding. It was not in dispute that the complainant had not received independent advice in the giving of the loan. However, the Distillery Tribunal found that the respondent had only borrowed \$11,000 from the complainant. 18:29 There was also a finding that the complainant was carrying on business as a moneylender. 18:36 Nevertheless, due to the breach, there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the respondent, and he was referred to the court of three judges. 18:48 Another area where conflict of interest may arise are purchases from client. The rules simply stated is that subject to the law of fiduciary relationships, a practitioner of practice may purchase goods and assets from a client only if the purchase is at the prevailing market price or at such price as is reasonable. Where practicable, an independent valuation of the goods and assets must be obtained. 19:18 This will help to show that the law practice or practitioner has not unfairly exercised influence over the client. Gifts from Client Where a client intends to make a significant gift, whether by will or inter vivos, to the legal practitioner, sole proprietor, partner, director, consultant, employee of the practice, or any immediate family member, or the law 19:47 The practitioner or practice must not act for the client in relation to the gift, and must advise the client to obtain independent legal advice in relation to the gift. The case of Law Society of Singapore and Wan Hui Hong James gives some guidance on this. X became the owner of a property, but suffered from mental incapacity and was treated. She was eventually placed in a home for the aged. 20:17 The Singapore Land Registry wrote to Ex to say that a certificate of title to the property had been issued in her name. However, she was unable to locate the original deed of conveyance required to collect the certificate of title. 20:34 The respondent lawyer was instructed by the superintendent of the home to act for X. The lawyer obtained a power of attorney from X, granting him authority to manage the affairs, and a last will and testament making him the sole trustee and beneficiary of her assets. 20:54 The respondent lawyer valued the property, and it came in at \$1.1 million, and he arranged for it to be sold. X signed a letter stating that she wanted to keep \$500,000 of the proceeds of sale, and that the respondent lawyer could keep the excess. 21:15 A complaint was made by the Attorney General\'s chambers following an audit of the home\'s books by the Auditor General\'s office. The respondent lawyer pleaded guilty for failing to advise X to seek independent legal advice in relation to the gift. He was found to be dishonest and struck off. 21:39 The court interpreted significant gift to mean 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. The court then went on to give a suggested approach. First, the lawyer should give the client a full explanation of why independent advice was required. 22:07 the client should be asked to nominate an independently advising advocate and solicitor. The client should also obtain written confirmation from the independent advocate and solicitor to the effect that a full explanation of the nature of the transaction and its practical implications have been furnished to the client. If the transaction by which the gift was to be made was of some complexity, 22:34 The lawyer receiving the gift should provide the independently advising advocate and solicitor with all information necessary to make the independent advice sufficiently comprehensive to the client. Should the client decline to seek independent advice for whatever reason, the lawyer receiving the gift should insist with some force that the client do so while reiterating the importance of receiving that independent advice. 23:03 The court said that in the absence of independent advice, the lawyer should simply decline to accept the gift. The court went on to say that the rule presupposes that the client is competent. If the client is not, or does not appear to be fully competent, extra steps would have to be taken depending on the circumstances. As an example, the court said that if the client had a history of mental illness, 23:32 then the additional step would have to be a psychiatric evaluation to demonstrate that the client is in fact competent to understand the advice given to it by the independent advocate solicitor. 23:47 The last case is Law Society of Singapore and Manjit Singh. In that case, the respondent lawyers alleged that they received a \$1.8 million gift from the complainant client. This was disbelieved because the court noted that no independent advice was given. 24:09 In the case of Maulana Bhatim of Singapore and Govinda Nair, Mr Nair failed to file his client\'s defence on time, and judgement in default of defence was entered against the client. When the client confronted Mr Nair, he did not come clean about his oversight, and instead persuaded the client to allow him to send a letter to the plaintiff to say that there were procedural defects in the default judgement. 24:39 Now clearly, it was in the best interest of the client to be informed of Mr Nair\'s negligence and breach as well as his rights in that situation. This was contrary to Mr Nair\'s interest, since giving of such information and advice would expose Mr Nair to potential liability, disciplinary action, or simply the decision by the client not to engage him any further. 25:09 Although Mr Nair\'s interests and the client\'s were both aligned as regards setting aside the default judgement, Mr Nair\'s interest on the issue of negligence was clearly not aligned. Therefore, Mr Nair could not continue acting for the client without making a full and frank disclosure of the adverse interest, advising the client to obtain independent legal advice, or ensuring 25:36 that the client is not under an impression that he was protecting the client\'s interests and finally obtaining a written informed consent from the client that he could continue to act for the client. 25:51 In the Law Society of Singapore and Malcolm Tan, Mr Tan practiced with a law corporation, and he was also a sole shareholder and director of Blue Sky Group Private Limited that provided business management consultancy and real estate agent services. Mr Tan promoted an investment scheme to the client, and the client entered into two engagement 26:20 The letters stated that the investment would be overseen by Mr Tan, and that he was the lawyer in charge of the matter. 26:30 Although the letters of engagement stated that the payments were to be made to the law corporation\'s client account, Mr Tan persuaded the client to make the payments to Blue Sky instead. 26:44 Mr Tan was convicted of, among other things, a charge that he had placed himself in a position where his duty to his client\'s best interest was in conflict with his own. Mr Tan had preferred his own interest, which was ultimately to procure the client to invest the money with Blue Sky through false assurances made in connection with the role and involvement of the law corporation, over that of his client, which was to have 27:13 his investments safeguarded in accordance with the assurances that had been given to him. 27:24 North Society of Singapore and Nishat Phan. 27:29 Mrs Lee participated in the preparation and execution of the last will and testament of her father-in-law, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mrs Lee faced primary charges on the ground of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duty, alternative charges on the ground of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor, and further alternative charges on the ground of misconduct unbefitting. 27:58 and advocate and solicitor. The former two sets of charges were premised on there being a solicited client relationship where a solicitor prefers her own interests to that of the client. 28:15 The court of three judges found that there was no solicitor-client relationship, and therefore those charges were not made out. However, the court found her to be misconducting, undefitting, and advocate and solicitor. This is because, given her divided loyalties between those she owed to her husband, and to the test data, 28:42 who he recently had been regarded as a client, although he was not. Those divided loyalties would have been patent to him. 28:58 In Law Society of Singapore at Ong Paek Kee, Mr Ong entered into a consultancy agreement with a company to provide and sell its products. Mr Ong would bear the cost of the promotion and receive a commission on sales. Mr Ong then invited various people to contribute towards those costs in exchange for sharing in the commission he would receive. A lender agreed to do so. 29:26 and Mr Ong and the lender entered into an agreement stating that the lender was making an investment with Mr Ong. However, it was found that the investment was in the nature of a loan. This is because the sum of money advanced by the lender to Mr Ong was at no time at risk. The lender was entitled to be repaid the full amount regardless whether Mr Ong received any commission from 29:55 the company that he was representing. 29:59 Although the lender did not engage Mr Ong as her solicitor, the lender fell within the definition of client under the rule because Mr Ong had approached her to invest money through him, namely the loan, which the Triunal helped to be a form of investment. 30:24 And that concludes this series of slides. B24 EPR - II\. Relationship with the client - \(1) Formation of **[Retainer]** - Who is a \"client\": section 2(1) LPA; Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian Sidambaram \[2009\] 4 SLR(R) 674 at \[39\] to \[44\] - **[ Implied retainer:]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 308 at \[64\]-\[73\]; **[Factors considered for finding of implied retainer]** - Anwar Patrick Adrian v Ng Chong & Hue LLC \[2014\] 3 SLR 761 at \[49\]-\[61\]; - c.f. Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern \[2020\] SGHC 255 at \[57\]-\[69\] - Position when instructed by agent: Fong Maun Yee v Yoong Weng Ho Robert \[1997\] 1 SLR(R) 751 - PD 7.4.2 - Reservation of Rights in Warrant to Act or Letter of Engagement; - PD 7.1.2 - Limitation of Civil Liability; - s11 UCTA - - PD 7.4.3 - Warrant to Act, Letter of Engagement and Referrals from Third Parties \[PD 7.4.3 will be non-examinable for the purposes of Part B EPR 2024\]. - \(2) **[Honesty,]** competence and diligence (Rule 5 PCR) - Law Society of Singapore v. K Jayakumar Naidu \[2012\] 4 SLR 1232 at \[85\]- \[91\] **[- pressures of practice is not an excused]** - - - - - Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon \[2011\] SGHC 242 at \[31\]-\[35\] - **[Consequence for dishonesty is striking off]** - Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan and Molly Lim (a firm) \[2004\] 4 SLR(R) 594 at \[42\]-\[45\] - **[Soliciotr\'s duty depends on the scope of the retainer]** - - - - Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena \[2013\] SGHC 5 - **[High level of diligence regardless of quantum of fee charged]** - - Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju \[2017\] SGHC 141 at \[25\]-\[30\] and \[102\]-\[109\] **[Dishonesty = striking off]** - - Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang \[2018\] SGHC 174 at \[44\]-\[55\] - **[Dishonesty = Struck off;]** **[Factors considered for striking off]** - Law Society of Singapore v Jaya Anil Kumar \[2019\] SGHC 12 at \[4\]-\[7\] - **[inexperience is not an excuse]** - - Law Society of Singapore v Yong Wei Kuen Paul \[2020\] SGHC 66 at \[8\]-\[16\] **[Struck off despite not benefitting from deception]** - Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua \[2022\] SGHC 84 at \[110\]-\[120\] - **[Past erraneous conduct will be considered aggravating factor]** - Law Society of Singapore v Mohammed Lutfi bin Hussin \[2022\] SGHC 182 at \[23\], \[33\]-\[34\] - **[The court will not accept that there is a spectrum of dishonesty]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat \[2022\] SGHC 185 at \[2\]-\[4\] - **[Breach of solicitor\'s duties resulted in client\'s claim being time-barred]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer \[2024\] SGHC 90 at \[36\]-\[50\] - **[Solicitor cannot depend on others to verify as an excuse]** - \(3) **[Confidentiality]** (Rule 6 PCR) - Whether information is confidential in nature: Law Society of Singapore v Ravi S/O Madasamy \[2015\] 3 SLR 1187 at \[33\] **[- The information disclosed must be confidential, and if so, client\'s prior consent must be obtained.]** PD 9.1.1 - Request for Information - PD 9.1.3 - Professional Secrecy & Privilege - **[Privilege last forever, unless waived by client]** - \(4) **[Conflict]**, or potential conflict, between interests of **[2 or more clients]** (**[Rule 20 PCR]**) - Preliminary considerations for legal practitioner - Scenario 1: Before the lawyer takes on the matter (**[Rule 20(2), (3), (4) and (7)]**) - Rule 20 (3)(b) Rule 20 (4) and (6) - Scenario 2: When the lawyer is already acting for the relevant parties (**[Rule 20 (5) and (6)]**) **[Exception]** to **[Rule 20]** under **[Rule 20(7)]** - Question: Are the interests of the relevant parties adequately protected? - Multiple clients - Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer \[2019\] SGHC 92 - **[unflinching loyalty]** - **[Multiple clients]**: Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan and Molly Lim (a firm) \[2004\] 4 SLR(R) 594 at \[36\] and \[48\]-\[50\]; - Law Society of Singapore v Uthayasurian Sidambaram \[2009\] 4 SLR(R) 674 at \[34\]-\[53\]; - - Mahidon Nichiar bte Mohd Ali and others v Dawood Sultan Kamaldin \[2015\] SGCA 36 at \[63\]-\[80\]; -that transaction will be regarded as suspect and will be liable to be **[set aside]** - Cases involving **[implied retainers]** and/or the duty to ensure that non-clients are not under impression that legal practitioner is protecting their interests: - Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 308 at \[74\] - **[Interest of one client should not be prioritised over other clients]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ganesan Krishnan \[2003\] 2 SLR(R) 251 - **[The test is that of acting for a single client applied to each of all clients]** - - PD 7.2.1 - Acting Against a Public Authority - PD 7.2.2 - Acting for Both Applicant Creditors and Provisional Liquidator - PD 7.2.3 - Acting for Both Complainant and Accused - PD 7.2.4 - Acting for Both Debenture Holder of a Company and Receiver Appointed by the Holder - **[Only can act for both if the receiver has received independent legal advise.]** - PD 7.2.5 - Conflict of Interest - Acting **[Against Former Client in Litigation Pertaining to Same Transaction]** - PD 7.2.6 - Conflict of Interest - Mortgagor/ Mortgagee - \(5) Conflict, or potential conflict, between interests of **[current client]** and **[former client]** (**[Rule 21 PCR]**) - Harsha Rajkumar Mirpuri (Mrs) nee Subita Shewakram Samtani v Shanti Shewakram Samtani Mrs Shanti Haresh Chugani \[2018\] SGHC 155 the **[Bolkiah principle (prospective former client)]** - Lim Oon Kuin v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP \[2022\] SGCA 29 - **[There needs to be unqualified perception of fairness in the eyes of the public]** - \(6) Conflict, or potential conflict, between interests of client and **[interests of legal practitioner or law practice]**, in general (**[Rule 22 PCR]**) - **[Actual harm to client is not required for this provision to apply]** - Law Society of Singapore v Loh Yong Sen - Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another \[2012\] 2 SLR 451 - **[Duty applies to the entire firm]** - Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju \[2013\] 3 SLR 875 - **[Cannot turn a wilful blind eye]** - Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang \[2007\] 3 SLR(R) 477 - **[Failure to make inquiries]** - Ho Kon Kim v Betsy Lim \[2001\] SGHC 75; \[2001\] SGCA 64 at \[63\] - **[Solicitor cannot have personal interest in the case]** - Law Society of Singapore v Singham Dennis Mahendran \[2001\] 1 SLR(R) 1 - **[fell in love with client and convinced her not to reconcil with husband]** - Law Society of Singapore v Govindan Balan Nair \[2020\] SGHC 174 **There does NOT need to be any harm actually caused before this provision is contravened** - - - Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm \[2020\] SGHC 166 - **[Cannot furthered his own interests under false pretenses]** - - GN 7.4.2 - Providing Welfare Assistance to Clients. - **[Reserve the right to withdraw]** - - \(7) Conflict of interest in family proceedings (Rule 15B PCR) \(8) Prohibited **[borrowing]** transactions (**[Rule 23 PCR]**) - Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng Christopher \[2014\] 4 SLR 877 - **[Cannot borrow money from client]** - Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore \[2007\] 1 SLR(R) 482 - **[cannot take loans from client even though no undue influence is found]** - Law Society of Singapore v Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan \[2015\] SGDT 2 - **[It is irrelevant both as a matter of liability and as a mitigating factor that the Complainant suffered no loss as a result of the two prohibited borrowing transactions.]** Law Society of Singapore v Chia Chwee Imm Helen \[2022\] SGHC 214 - **[the Court will not give weight to the mental health issues of the errant solicitor in considering stirking off]** - \(9) **[Purchases]** from client (**[Rule 24 PCR]**) - \(10) **[Gifts]** from client (**[Rule 25 PCR]**) - Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James \[2013\] 3 SLR 221 - **[must decline the gift in the absence of independent advice]** - Law Society of Singapore v Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another \[2015\] 3 SLR 829 - **[Cannot accept under the pretext of \"safe keeping\"; Will be liable even if the monies returned]** - LSS v Govindan Balan Nair \[2020\] 5 SLR 988 - **[Full and frank disclosure + Independent advice + consent to act]** - LSS v Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm \[2020\] 5 SLR 946 - **[Cannot enter into business transactions with clients]** - Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern \[2020\] SGHC 255 - **[There cannot be any waiver of conflict of interest after the fact, where the client was not fully appraised of the facts]** - LSS v Ong Teck Ghee \[2014\] SGDT 7 - **[Where the client decline to receive independent legal advice despite being advised to do so, this cannot operate as an exception. Only a certificate from third party solicitor will suffice]** - \(11) Completion of retainer and withdrawal from representation (Rule 26 PCR) - Chew Kim Kee v. Kertar & Co \[2004\] SGHC 95 - A solicitor owes duties of honesty, competence and diligence to his client and [must complete] the work pursuant to the client's instructions until the termination of the retainer Alfons Tanumihardja v. Thio Su Mien \[2005\] 2 SLR(R) 445 **Closing of a client file does not, in itself, terminate the solicitor-client relationship** Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena \[2013\] SGHC 5 Solicitors are expected to uphold a certain level of diligence and competence even if a low fee is charged PD 7.3.1 - Copies of Documents - PD 7.3.4 - Transfer of Clients\' Monies on Dissolution - - - GN 7.3.1 - Guidelines for Handling of Clients' Files When a Solicitor Leaves a Law Practice to Practise in Another Law Practice