EPR VidLec5 - Copy PDF

00:01 Today, we are going to be talking about the legal practitioner\'s role in the administration of justice. Today\'s lecture, I will cover in particular conduct of proceedings before a court or tribunal, followed by a solicitor\'s responsibility for his or her client\'s conduct in proceedings be...

00:01 Today, we are going to be talking about the legal practitioner\'s role in the administration of justice. Today\'s lecture, I will cover in particular conduct of proceedings before a court or tribunal, followed by a solicitor\'s responsibility for his or her client\'s conduct in proceedings before a court or tribunal. And finally, on 00:28 conflict of interest in proceedings before a court tribunal. 00:34 Now on to conduct of proceedings before a court or tribunal. The first thing you should know and be aware of is that an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court is also an officer of the Supreme Court. The rules governing a legal practitioner\'s conduct before a court or tribunal are founded on his or her unique position as an officer of the Supreme Court. 01:02 As stated in the case of By-Products Traders Private Limited, the label officer of the court presupposes and connotes obligations and responsibilities in upholding the legal framework. This in turn gives the legal practitioner an absolute and overriding duty to the court to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice. 01:31 Now moving on to an advocate and solicitor\'s duty to assist in the administration of justice. Over the next few slides, you will see reproduced extracts from the judgment in the case of Soh Tong and Pee Pee. The case of Soh Tong and Pee Pee stands for the proposition that professional incompetence and indolence also count as forms of dishonesty for which a solicitor can be strongly berated by the court. 02:03 A solicitor\'s dishonesty will be taken very seriously by the court. In the case of Chung Ting Fai, a lawyer was suspended for one year for drafting a false affidavit. 02:22 The court rationalized its decision on the duty solicitors owe to the court as officers of the court. It did not matter if the solicitor\'s dishonesty arose from a misguided attempt to assist a client. A solicitor\'s degree of responsibility as an officer of the court will also extend to the duty to provide proper and honest evaluation of a client\'s case. 02:52 Now, Rule 5 of the Professional Conduct Rules 2015 states that 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. Rule 9, Subsection 1E goes on to state that a legal practitioner must conduct his or her 03:22 integrity and efficiency of proceedings. What the professional conduct rules mean in practice is that counsel should act reasonably in the interests of their clients without wasting the time and resources of the court. In Lock Jonathan and Go Jessalyn, the court had harsh words for solicitors who dragged out areas of contention. 03:50 where no high principle was at stake. 03:55 Relevant extracts from the judgment in Lock Jonathan are reproduced over the next few slides for your review. 04:23 Moving on now to the topic of courtesy to the court. A legal practitioner must always be courteous in the conduct of a case before a court or tribunal, whether to the court, tribunal or any other person involved in proceedings. Courtesy to the court is one way a legal practitioner upholds and shows respect for the administration of justice. 04:52 Duty to be courteous extends to a number of practices, including punctuality for whole-court proceedings. In his recent decision in Ang Jian Xiang and others 2016 SGHC 92, the learner justice Shu Han Teh dismissed four hard-call applications because the practice trainees supervising solicitors were late. 05:21 Learned Justice Chu said at paragraph 3 of the court\'s judgement as follows, When counsel is laid for court, it is a mark of disrespect, not for the individual judge as a person, but to the court as representing a legal institution. A lack of respect for the court, especially when it is in session, constitutes grave misconduct on the part of the solicitors. 05:48 as is demonstrated by the cases of Rihilpon and Law Society of Singapore and Ravi Madhusami. Summaries and all relevant extracts from the judgements in question have been set up over the next few slides for your quick review. 06:18 The court in Ravi Madhusami stated that a lack of respect diminishes the standing of the court and undermines its authority in the eyes of the public. 06:30 The solicitor also has a duty not to deceive or mislead the court from the law. 06:39 This duty extends even to informing the court of decisions or provisions which go against a solicitor\'s contentions before the court, as long as the solicitor is aware of the existence of such a decision or provision. Concealing an authority which the solicitor is aware of is tantamount to misleading the court. 07:06 As stated in the case of Ram Goswami, neither should a solicitor actively deceive the court. Deceiving the court is a nefarious practice which thwarts the administration of justice. The case of Danwan Singh stands for the proposition that it is the bounden duty of every advocate and solicitor, regardless of position, to uphold the integrity of the judicial 07:36 process. 07:47 breach of this duty will in turn be met with serious consequences. A legal practitioner is not only responsible for his or her own conduct in court proceedings, he or she is also responsible for the conduct of a client. 08:06 A lawyer should not assist his or her client in impropriety. The case of Narendar Singh and PP stands for the proposition that assisting in a client\'s impropriety will colour the conduct of the solicitor himself. Once a solicitor acts in an improper manner, he abuses the justice system. 08:31 summary along with relevant extracts from the judgment in the case of Narindar Singh and PP are set out over the next few slides for your review. 08:59 When taking instructions from clients, legal practitioners should still keep in mind their role in the administration of justice. This means they have a duty not to assert false claims to the court. 09:17 In the case of Bajumohan Singh, the court held that counsel can take clients\' instructions at face value unless 1. Council has personal knowledge that the instructions are false, or 2. The instructions are inherently incredible or logically impossible, in which case counsel ought to know that the instructions are false. 09:54 A legal practitioner owes certain duties to the court in discovery and disclosure. Although documents in discovery are the litigants to disclose, a solicitor still owes a duty to the court to explain to his or her client what his obligations in discovery are and further to supervise the disclosure process. This duty on the part of the solicitor is more onerous 10:25 than merely informing a client of the legal provisions on discovery. The case of Chio Wai Cheong explains the duty in practice. It extends to reviewing documents disclosed and investigating further if the solicitor has reason to believe relevant documents have been omitted, especially if the solicitor knows or ought to know how a corporate client works. 11:09 The duty in disclosure overlaps with the duty not to mislead the court. The High Court in Global Distressed Alpha Fund reminded lawyers that they cannot emphasise material facts favourable to the applicant at the expense of material facts favourable to the other party. 11:33 Finally, a legal practitioner has a duty to manage conflicts of interest in court proceedings in order to ensure the proper administration of justice. As per Rule 22 of the Professional Conduct Rules 2015, 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 12:02 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. 12:19 Rule against conflict does not only apply to situations where the lawyer\'s own interests conflict with his or her clients. It also applies to situations where the lawyer\'s relationship with the court may prejudice the impartial administration of justice. This also extends to where the lawyer is expected to be a material witness in proceedings. 12:47 As per Rule 11 subsection 3 of the Professional Conduct Rule 2015, 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, or he or she must discharge himself or herself from acting for any party to that case. 13:15 Where the lawyer is expected to be a material witness, his or her law firm may still act for a party in the matter, who another member of the firm, unless doing so, would prejudice the administration of justice. Now, the rationale for why a solicitor ought not to act when he is expected to be a material witness in proceedings is as follows. As a witness, 13:45 He or she has a paramount duty to testify to the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. The solicitor on the other hand has a duty to present the case in the best interest of the client. The solicitor therefore should not place himself in a position where two duties could potentially conflict. 14:15 that ultimately a lawyer had not acted unreasonably or improperly in representing a party to a case in which another lawyer from the same firm was a material witness. However, the court also advised that both lawyers should have discharged themselves from acting for that party and advised her to seek independent legal advice before proceeding. 14:47 The case of Ten Kek Kun and Arjun Samtani stands for the proposition that rules against conflict stem from the principle that a solicitor\'s own interests cannot conflict with those of the client and the court. 15:11 As per Rule 14, Subsection 3a of Professional Conduct Rules 2015, a legal practitioner who represents an accused person must not provide any surety or bail for the accused person. B24 EPR - III\. The legal practitioner's role in the administration of justice - \(1) **[Conduct of proceedings before court]** or tribunal (Rule 9) - Officer of the Supreme Court: section 82(1) LPA; - Public Trustee and another v By Products Traders Pte Ltd and Others \[2005\] 3 SLR(R) 449 at \[26\] - Duty to assist in the administration of justice / **[Paramount duty to court]**: - dishonesty, incompetence, failure to **[provide proper and honest evaluation of the client\'s case]** - Public Trustee (above), especially at \[30\], \[53\]; - **[duty to the court is first and foremost]** - Zhou Tong and others v Public Prosecutor \[2010\] 4 SLR 534, at \[11\]-\[18\]; **[- charged for non-existent legal work]** - Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting Fai \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 587, at \[48\]; **[Solicitior drafted a false affidavit for Exetnsion of time]** - BOI v BOJ \[2018\] SGCA 61 - **[Solictor cannot be a mere conduit between client and the Court. Paramount duty to the Court.]** - Must reasonably in the interests of their clients without **[wasting]** the time by not assessing client\'s case. (**[Rule 5]** and **[Rule 9(1)(e)]**): - Lock Han Chng Jonathan v Goh Jessiline \[2008\] 2 SLR(R) 455 at \[45\]-\[47\]; - **[Duty to evaluate client\'s case and likelihood of settlement, instead of litigation.]** - Zhou Tong and others v Public Prosecutor \[2010\] 4 SLR 534 at \[19\]-\[21\]; **[- Purusing minor \$60 in court]** - Lam Hwa Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Yang Qiang \[2014\] 2 SLR 191 at \[35\]-\[42\]; They owe a duty to his client to **conduct a proper risk-benefit evaluation at each significant stage of the proceedings** Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appeal \[2018\] 1 SLR 1 at \[68\]-\[76\]; **Solicitor owes his first duty to the court and if a position, in good conscience is untenable, the advocate is duty-bound to decline to put it forward** Singapore Shooting Association and others v Singapore Rifle Association \[2019\] SGCA 83; **[Must assess whether pursuing the matter in court would be in the interest of administration of justice]** Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor \[2021\] SGCA 90 - **[A legal practitioner owes a duty to his client to assess the merits of any application appropriately before invoking the court's (criminal) processes. He also owes a duty to the court (criminal), as well as to the public, to assist in the administration of justice.]** - **[Courtesy]** to the court (**[Rule 13 (3)]**): Does the act **[undermine]** the Court\'s **[authority]** in the eye of the public - Re Hilborne \[1983-1984\] SLR(R) 322 **[struck off for being rude]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ravi Madasamy \[2007\] SGHC 20; - **[lack of respect]** - Law Society of Singapore v Gopalan Nair \[2010\] SGDT 11; **the courts will consider a lawyer's misconduct not just in the professional capacity but also in the personal capacity. The offence [need not be committed in a professional capacity] before it implies a defect in character rendering him unfit for the profession** PD 1.4.2 - **[Punctuality]** for Court Hearings - Not to **[deceive or mislead (Rule 9(2)(a) and (3)(a))]**: - Public Trustee (above) at \[26\]-\[36\]; Law Society of Singapore v Nor\'ain bte Abu Bakar and others \[2009\] 1 SLR(R) 753; **[struck off for fradulently concealing facts from the court]** - - Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting Fai \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 587; **A solicitor's duty to the court cannot yield to a misguided attempt to assist his client.** Any attempts to do so, even if unsuccessful, **may be censured by the court** Re Ram Goswami \[1988\] 2 SLR(R) 183; - **[6 month suspension for deceiving the court]** - Dhanwant Singh \[1996\] 1 SLR(R) 1 - **[Duty for the legal practitioner to uphold the integrity of the judicial process by not abetting with the client to delay or deceive the Court.]** - Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra \[1998\] 3 SLR(R) 490; - **[Deceived previous clients into signing agreement to absolve himself of alleged fraud/improprietary]** - Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen \[1999\] 3 SLR 559; - **[forged court documents showed lack of respect for court processes]** Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju \[2017\] SGHC 141; **In our judgment, where an advocate and solicitor is shown to have been dishonest, including where he has been fraudulent in his dealings with the court, striking off will typically be the sanction save in the most exceptional circumstances.** Tan Ng Kuang Nicky v Metax Eco Solutions Pte Ltd \[2021\] SGCA 16; - **[deliberately suppressed information regarding settlement agreement to the court]** Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua \[2022\] SGHC 84 - *Solicitor intentionally concealing from client that he acted outside of instructions* - PD 1.6.1 - Attestation of Documents; Law Society of Singapore v Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan \[2022\] SGHC 79 - False attestation of documents **may amount to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of a solicitor's duty and constitute a breach of the LPA.** - - - PD 8.5.8 - Protracted Arguments in Chambers - - - PD 8.8.1 - Responsibility for Third Party Fees - - - - PD 7.3.2 - Legal Practitioner on Record - GN 1.1.1 -- Client's Presence in Chamber Hearings - - - \(2) Responsibility for client's conduct / **[Client\'s gifts / Discovery]** (**[Rule 10]**) - Impropriety of the client: - Narindar Singh s/o Malagar Singh v Public Prosecutor \[1996\] 3 SLR(R) 318 at \[48\]-\[53\]. **[Imprisoned for obtaining paid confession]** - Impact of client\'s instructions on preparation, submissions and presentation of documents (**[Rule 10(3)]**): - Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications \[2010\] 1 SLR 966; **[Counsel cannot rely on client\'s instructions at face value]** - Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore \[1988\] 1 SLR(R) 455; **[there is no legal duty on the part of a solicitor to believe/disbelieve his client's instructions and verify his client's instructions] [unless]** **[he himself has personal knowledge of the matter]**, **[his client's statements are inherently incredible or logically impossible]** Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew \[1998\] 3 SLR(R) **A solicitor should not act for the client unless he is conscientiously satisfied that there is material upon which he can properly do so** - Duties in **[discovery/disclosure:]** - Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial \[2013\] 3 SLR 573 at \[43\]-\[49\]. **[Solicitor is to supervise the disclosure process and not merely inform client]** - Global Distressed Alpha Fund \[2013\] SGHC 12; \[2013\] 2 SLR 228 - **[Duty to disclose all material not just material supporting client\'s case]** - **[ Duty of Candour]** owed to the Court / **[Duty not to suppress evidence:]** - Law Society v de Souza Christopher James \[2023\] SGHC 318 at \[160\]-\[168\] and \[207\], - **[Must consider the nature and purpose of the proceedings, objective assess if a failure to disclose and subjectively intended the non-disclosure.]** - read with Attorney-General v Shahira Banu d/o Khaja Moinudeen \[2024\] SGHC 111 at \[1\]-\[2\] and \[32\]-\[37\]. - **[Solicitor cannot be parsimonious (unwilling) with the truth]** - PD 1.6.2 - Duty of Legal Practitioner to Lay Information of Criminal Offence. - No advice for dishonest, fraudulent or unlawful purpose: Law Society of Singapore v Leong Pek Gan \[2016\] SGHC 165 - **[Two element test]** - - - \(3) **[Conflict of interest in proceedings before court]** or tribunal (**[Rule 11]**) **[Legal practitioner as witnesses]** - Ho Kon Kim v Betsy Lim Gek Kim & Ors \[2001\] SGCA 64, at \[61\]-\[63\] - **[Where solicitor would be a material witness]** - Then Khek Khoon & Anor v Arjun Permanand Samtani & Anor \[2012\] 2 SLR 451 at \[30\]-\[36\]; **[Solicitor should not be permitted to shape the evidence to suit solicitor\'s interests]** - PD 1.7.1 - Legal Practitioners as Witnesses. - - - \(4) Communications and dealings with **[witnesses]** (**[Rule 12]**) - Guiding principles - Rule 12(2) - Rule 12(3) - Rule 12(4) - Rule 12(5) - Rule 12(6) - Rule 12(7) - Rule 12(8) - Witness coaching: Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compania De Navegacion Palomar, SA and others and other appeals \[2018\] SGCA 16 - **[Solicitor should not supplant witness\' testimony]** 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - Inappropriate cross-examination of witnesses/victims: Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee \[2018\] SGHC 196 - **[Withness examination should not be offensive to the witness]** 1. 2. - \(5) Respect for court or tribunal and related responsibilities / **[Solicitor\'s undertaking to the Court]** (**[Rule 13]**) - Guiding Principles - Respect for court / courtesy: - Law Society of Singapore v **[Ravi Madasamy]** \[2007\] 2 SLR(R) 300; - (a) turning his back on the District Judge while being addressed; (b) remaining seated while being addressed by the District Judge; (c) stating that the District Judge had not addressed him properly and expressing his unhappiness at being pointed at; (d) informing the District Judge that he would report her to the Legal Service Commission and the Ministry of Law; (e) replying that different people spoke in different tones when he was being directed by the District Judge not to speak to the prosecuting officer or to other counsel in loud tones; and (f) replying that he wished the court would address him properly - Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v A-G \[2022\] SGHC 184 at \[11\]-\[12\] **[missed deadline to file submissions]** - Undertakings to the court: - Law Society v Seow Francis T \[1971-1973\] SLR(R) 727; **[breach undertaking by not handling over files]** - Re Marshall David; **[breach of undertaking not to send affidavits to the press]** - Law Society v Marshall David Saul \[1971-1973\] SLR(R) 554; - **[breached undertaking not to disclose to the press]** - Re A Solicitor \[1932\] 1 MLJ 177;- Breach of undertaking to **[pay former Solicitors' bill of costs]** - Law Society of Singapore v Harbans Singh Sidhu \[1993\] SGDSC 6; - **[Breach of undertaking to refund client'S money]** - Law Society of Singapore v Naidu Priyalatha \[2022\] SGHC 224;- **[Suspended for three months for deliberately breaching undertaking]** - PD 4.1.1 - Breach of Undertaking in Admiralty Proceedings - **[Forgery]** of court documents (**[Rule 13(6)]**): - Law Society of Singapore v Ng Bock Hoh Dixon \[2010\] 2 SLR 1000; **[Even though the false document was not a court document, it was an important accounting record relating to his law firm's account.]** - GN 1.6.1 - Guidelines on Reporting Subversion of the Administration of Justice. - Publication of material that amounts to a contempt of court, is calculated to interfere with the fair trial of a case, or to prejudice the administration of justice: Law Society of Singapore v Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario \[2022\] SGHC - Rules relating to **[Criminal proceedings]** - \(6) Conducting the defence in **[criminal proceedings (Rule 14)]** - Must pursue every reasonable defence (**[Rule 14(2]**)) - Must not express LP\'s personal opnion on guilt - Rule 14(3) - Duty not to let roles conflict (**[Rule 14(3)(a)]**) - Rule 14(4) - Rule 14(5) - Rule 14(6) - Rule 14(7) - Rule 14(8) - Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore \[2020\] SGHC 40 at \[60\] and \[80\]-\[85\] - [ **there is no requirement to take verbatim notes; it is the substance of the client's instructions that is important for the record**] - \(7) Conducting the prosecution in criminal proceedings (**[Rule 15]**) - Rule 15(2) - Rule 15(3) - Rule 15(4) - Rule 15(5) - Rule 15(6) - \(8) Representing client in family proceedings (Rule 15A)