B24 ERP - Singapore Law Past Paper PDF

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 Ah...

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 - **[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]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer \[2019\] SGHC 92 - **[unflinching loyalty]** - 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 \[74\] - 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 - 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 - 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]**) - 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]** - 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 - 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]** - 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)(b))]**: - 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 \[48\]-\[53\]. **[Obtaining gratification from co-accused]** - 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; - **[Negative examples]** - Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v A-G \[2022\] SGHC 184 at \[11\]-\[12\] **[Negative examples]** - Undertakings to the court: - Law Society v Seow Francis T \[1971-1973\] SLR(R) 727; - Re Marshall David; - Law Society v Marshall David Saul \[1971-1973\] SLR(R) 554; - 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; - 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)]**) - 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]**) - \(8) Representing client in family proceedings (Rule 15A) - IV\. Relationship with other legal practitioners and other persons - \(1) Responsibilities of legal practitioners to each other (Rule 7, 27 PCR) - **[Rule 7(2) - Allows disputes between the parties to be resolved without unnecessary complications. One can disagree and yet not be disagreeable.]** - Guiding Principles: **[Rules 7(1) and 27 PCR]** - Rule 7(1) - Rule 27 - The duty of courtesy and fairness: - China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd \[2005\] 2 SLR(R) 509 - one can disagree and yet not be disagreeable - Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 308 - counsel concerned can join in 'legal combat' and still display the nobility of the law - The Law Society of Singapore v Terence Tan Bian Chye \[2007\] SGDSC 10 - **[should not threaten other legal practitioners]** - Law Society v Ravi s/o Madasamy \[2023\] SGHC 65; - **[The substance of any allegation of misconduct is considered separately from the complainant\'s own conduct]** - Law Society of Singapore v K Jayakumar Naidu \[2012\] SGHC 200 - **[Not every act of alleged discourtesy will be scrutinised]** - Dealings with other legal practitioners: - o PD 8.5.3 - Draft Documents - - - o PD 8.5.7 - Professional Conference - o PD 2.1.1 - Challenging another Legal Practitioner on Law Society\'s Rulings - - o PD 8.5.9 - Offensive Letters - o PD 8.3.2 - Quoting of References in Correspondence - o PD 8.5.10 - Service of Originating Process on Legal Practitioners - o PD 8.5.6 - Phone Etiquette - o PD 8.3.1 - Communication with Former Client - o PD 7.3.3 - No Taking Over Brief Until Retainer Determined and Basis of Second Opinion - o PD 8.5.2 - Advising a Friend who is a Client of Another Legal Practitioner. - **[Undertakings]** to other solicitors: - **[Rule 7(3)]** -- No communication with represented clients without express approval unless not reasonably practicable or severe prejudice to own client. **[The rule is a strict one that extends to former clients.]** - **[Rule 7(4)]** -- Lawyer may give second opinion to represented clients but must not improperly seek to influence the client to change lawyers - Rule 7(6) -- Lawyer must honour every undertaking given to another lawyer - Rule 7(7) PCR - must not give an undertaking unless he believes it is necessary and he is certain to honour it; - Law Society v Arjan Chotrani Bisham \[2001\] SGHC 24 - **[Failure to honor an undertaking constitutes misconduct]** - Otto Ventures Pte Ltd v EECYT Law LLC \[2017\] SGHC 98 **[- Cannot cite client\'s instructions for not honoring solicitor\'s undertaking]** - - - - - Rule 7(8) -- Lawyer may ask another lawyer if he has authority to act for a person - 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 - Law Society of Singapore v Naidu Priyalatha \[2022\] SGHC 224 - **[The fact that no loss was suffered by breach of the undertaking is irrelevant]** - A solicitor may ask another solicitor acting in the same matter to produce if he has authority to act: Rule 7(8) and 7(9) PCR, Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd and others \[2005\] 3 SLR(R) 184, PD 7.4.3 Entrapment to obtain evidence of touting: PD 8.5.5 - Obtaining Evidence of a Legal Practitioner's Misconduct by **[Entrapment]** or by Illegal or Improper Means - \(2) Entering default judgment (**[Rule 28]** PCR) **[requirement of 2 days prior notice. construe Rule 28 of the PCR 2015 as also being applicable to the entering of judgements in the form of appearance.]** - Public Trustee and another v By Products Traders Pte Ltd \[2005\] 3 SLR 449 - \(3) Allegations against another legal practitioner (**[Rule 29]** PCR), **[unless the respondent lawyer is provided opportunity to respond (Not parties to litigation opportunity).]** - Tan Beng Hui Carolyn v Law Society of Singapore \[2023\] SGCA 7 - **[The court will consider the lack of remorse as an aggrevating factor to impose fine.]** PD 8.1.1. - Allegations Against Another Legal Practitioner in Court Documents - - - - Duty to give opportunity to respond: Imran bin Mohd Arip v PP \[2021\] SGCA 91**it is a matter of common fairness and professional courtesy that the person at the receiving end of the allegations has a chance to know what is being said about him, and to comment on the allegations, before they are raised before the court.** - \(4) Communication with court (**[Rule 30 PCR and PD para 41]**) - \(5) Communication with another legal practitioner (**[Rule 31 PCR]**) - \(6) Conduct in relation to other persons (**[Rule 8]** PCR) - Resonsibility to unrepresented persons or litigants in person (**[Rule 8(2)]**) - The Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 308 - **[Solicitor should not subordinate interests of third party to his own clients]** - Duty not to take **[unfair advantage]** of any person (Rule 8(3)(a)) - (Carolyn Tan Beng Hui v The Law Society of Singapore \[1999\] SGHC 23).- **[Should not use law firm\'s letter to exert pressure on third party.]** - Must not act towards any person in a fraudent manner (Rule 8(3)(b)) - LOD cannot recover what is not recoverable at law (**[Rule 8(4))]** - Must not write threatening **[criminal]** or discipinary proceedings (**[Rule 8(5)]**) - PD 9.1.2 - Letters Threatening Criminal Proceedings / Offensive Letters; - Law Society of Singapore v Peter Pang Xiang Zhong \[2006\] SGDSC 21; - **[Should not send law firm letter to embarrass and exert pressure on the Complianant]** Law Society of Singapore v Terence Tan Bian Chye \[2007\] SGDSC 10 **Threatening to report another law firm to the Law Society is akin to threatening criminal proceedings and sending threatening letters is a serious breach of the etiquette rules** - The Law Society of Singapore v Chew Kia Heng \[2001\] SGDSC 3 - **[Do not make unreasonable demands to acknowledge receipt of letter of demand]** - Previous mediator should not act for subsequent matter (**[Rule 8(6)]**) - Abusive language and unruly behaviour: - Law Society of Singapore v Gopalan Nair \[2011\] SGHC 191; **[Should not write blogs about the judiciary]** - Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel \[2022\] SGHC 112 - Test for misconduct: **[For the first element of falling below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, the core concern was one of character: did the solicitor in question have a defect of character that rendered him unfit to remain an advocate and solicitor, with all the duties and responsibilities that this entailed? The second element of bringing grave dishonour to the profession spoke to a different concern: in such a scenario, the errant legal practitioner could not be suffered to remain on the roll, and to continue bearing the implicit imprimatur of the profession and the courts.]** - Must not commit misconduct in his **[personal capacity]** - Law Society of Singapore v Gopalan Nair (alias Pallichadath Gopalan Nair) \[2011\] 4 SLR 607 - **[should not write blogs criticising the judiciary]** - Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean \[2010\] 3 SLR 560 - **[work pressure will not be accepted as excuse for being dishonest]** - Law Society of Singapore v Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh \[2010\] SGDT 5; - **[cannot ask client to belly dance for solicitor]** - Law Society of Singapore v Ismail bin Atan \[2017\] SGHC 190;  **[Even in cases that did not involve dishonesty]**, where a solicitor conducted himself in a way that fell below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, and brought grave dishonour to the profession, he would be liable to be struck off. Law Society of Singapore v CNH \[2022\] SGHC 114 - **[sentencing under the criminal proceedings is in addition to the punishment imposed by the disciplinary court]** - PD 1.8.1 - Letters of Demand - Duty to comply with legal requirements of public institutions: Law Society of Singapore v Ong Ying Ping \[2005\] 3 SLR(R) 583 - PD 4.3.1 - Procedure to Visit and Interview Clients in Prisons. - V. Supervision of staff, use of titles and executive appointments - \(1) Responsibility for staff of law practice (**[Rule 32 PCR]**) - Sections 32-36, 77 LPA; - s77 LPA - PD 3.11.2 - Work Done by an **Unauthorised Person** - GN 3.7.1 -- Supervision of Paralegals - Paralegals do fall within the category of "unauthorised persons". - Failure to exercise proper supervision: Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Siew Chye Troy \[2019\] SGHC 115; **[Solicitor will be liable for employee who cheated]** - Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh Jonathan \[2020\] SGHC 102 - **[Fee sharing agreement with paralegal is prohibited]** - Responsibility to supervise Practice Trainees: Law Society v Clarence Lun Yaodong \[2022\] SGHC 269 at \[47\]-\]50\] - **[Solicitor is responsible to supervise Trainee]** - s32 LPA - Requirements for practice and unauthorised persons - \(2) Descriptions and **titles** (s**** LPA) - Criminal offence - Section 34 LPA **[Exceptions to unauthroised person]** to Section 33 LPA - Section 35 LPA **[Exceptions to \"unauthorised person\"]** to Section 32 and 33 (Arbitrator) - Section 35B LPA **[Exceptions to \"unauthorised person\"]** to Section 32 and 33 LPA - **[Consequences]** of breach Section 33 LPA - Repay fees - **[Assisting]** unauthorised persons **[s77 LPA]** - **[Consequence]** of breach if s77 LPA; **[50K; 12 months]** - Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Siew Chye Tony \[2019\] SGHC 115 - **[Failure to supervise conveyancing clerk]** - Practice Direction 3.11.2 **[- Prohibition of Solicitor \'lending name\']** - Rule 33 - **[prohibition of using occupation \"solicitor\"]** - Exceptions to Rule 32 and 33 \"unauthorised persons\" - Rule 35 LPA - Exceptions under Rule 35B - \(3) **[Executive appointments]** (**[Rule 34]**; and First to Fourth Schedules PCR) **[-cannot derogate from the dignity of the legal profession]** - **[Exceptions]** under Second schedule - **[business entity cannot be held out as legal practice.]** - Due Cause s83(2)(i) - PD 3.8.1 - Executive Appointments and Engagement in Business, Trade or Calling (e.g. Housinhg Agent) - VI\. Publicity and prohibition against touting - \(1) Publicity (Rules 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 PCR) - Rule 37 - **[Touting and Publicity]** - **[Did the act affect the standing of the profession]**? - Rule 41 - **[Permitted Publicity]** - Rule 42(3) - General responsibilities relating to publicity; **[obligation to retract]** - Rule 43 (b)(ii) - General requirements relating to publicity; **[Success rate]** - Rule 44 - Publicity should not be misleading - Rule 45 - Contribution to good causes - Rule 46 - Third party Publicity - Rule 47 - Free legal services - Ruel 48 - Publicity outside Singapore - **[cannot break foreign laws]** - PD 6.2.1 - Advertisement and Media Publicity - - - - - PD 6.2.4 - Publicity by Legal Practitioners Through Public Appearances and Contributions to Publications - - - - - - PD 7.4.1 - Correspondences to Potential Clients Where Legal Practitioner is Permitted to Act for More Than One Client in a Transaction - - - PD 6.1.2 - Referrals/hyperlinking of websites - PD 6.2.3 - Identification of Legal Practitioners or Law Practices - GN 6.1.1 - Ethics and Information Technology 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. a. b. c. d. B. 6. 7. 8. C. i. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ii. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. iii. 22. 23. D. i. 24. 25. 26. ii. 27. 28. iii. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. - \(2) Touting and Referrals (Rules 39 and 40 PCR) - Rule 39 - (1) Touting and (2)**[Referal]** - Rule 40 - **[Agreement for referrals]** - Law Society of Singapore v Chong Wai Yen Michael \[2012\] 2 SLR 113 - Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju \[2013\] 3 SLR 875 - Law Society of Singapore v Lee Cheong Hoh \[2001\] 1 SLR(R) 197 - Law Society of Singapore v Tan Buck Chye \[2007\] 1 SLR(R) 581 - The Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey \[1999\] 1 SLR(R) 724 - Law Society of Singapore v Lillian Bay Puay Joo \[2008\] 2 SLR(R) 316; - Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis \[2008\] 2 SLR(R) 239 - The Law Society of Singapore v Yap Kok Kiong \[2006\] SGDSC 14 - Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore \[2006\] 4 SLR(R) 934 - Restrictions on procuration of work: LPA, s 83(2)(d)-(g) and LPA, s 78(1)(e) - \(3) Prohibited business, trade or calling (**[Rule 38]**) - Re An Advocate \[1964\] 1 MLJ 1 - C.f. Law Society of Singapore v Ong Teck Ghee \[2014\] SGDT 7 - Rule 34 - Executive appointments - VII\. Professional fees and Solicitors' Accounts Rules - \(1) Client money (**[Rule 16 PCR]**) - Duties to client in relation to client\'s monies (**[Rule 16 PCR]**) - Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules ("LPSAR") Client\'s money; client account (**[Rule 2 LPSAR]**); - GN 3.3.1 - Deposit of Moneys in the Client Account of a Law Practice 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. - Payment **[without delay]** into client account (**[Rule 3 LPSAR]**) - Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chwee Wan Allan - **[Client\'s monies must be deposited into the client\'s account]** - Purpose and legislative intent of **[Rules 2]** and **[3 LPSAR]**: - Law Society of Singapore v Dhanwant Singh \[2019\] SGHC 290; - see also Law Society of Singapore v Yong Wei Kuen Paul \[2020\] SGHC 66 - What to pay (**[Rule 4 LPSAR]**) **[Splitting]** of moneys: **[Rule 5 LPSAR]** - What not to pay (**[Rule 6 LPSAR]**) - Exceptions: Rules 6 and 9 LPSAR; - Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng John \[2012\] 3 SLR 150 - Client Account: Rules 7-8, 10 LPSAR; PD 3.3.1 - Drawing Money for Legal Costs from Client Account - What can be withdrawn? (**[Rule 7 LPSAR]**) - How money may be drawn from the client account (**[Rule 8 LPSAR]**) - PDR 3.3.10 - Responsibilities of second signatory 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. - Transfers between accounts (Rule 10 LPSAR) - Keeping proper records: Rules 11, 11A, 12 LPSAR - Rule 11 LPSAR - Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena \[2005\] 4 SLR(R) 320 - Law Society of Singapore v Tay Eng Kwee Edwin \[2007\] 4 SLR(R) 171 - Law Society of Singapore v Zulkifli bin Mohd Amin and another matter \[2011\] 2 SLR 620 - Engagement of Book-keeper (**[Rule 11A LPSAR]** ) - Right of lien, set-off: Rule 15 LPSAR - \(2) Legal Profession (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Rules 2015 - What measures to take - When should customer due diligence be undertaken? - In the event that suspicions are raised - other Issues - Lawyers to be vigilant: Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan \[2018\] SGHC 21 - \(3) Professional fees and costs (**[Rule 17 PCR]**) - Duties to client (**[Rule 17(2) PCR]**) - Ensure proper risk-benefit evaluation (Singapore Shotting Association v Singapore Rifle Association) - Inform client about fees (**[Rule 17(3) PCR]**) - Fees in contentious matters at the **[beginning]** (**[Rule 17(4) PCR]**) - Client\'s right to tax the bill (**[Rule 17(5) PCR]**) - Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul \[2011\] 4 SLR 1184 - Inform client of consequences of taxation (**[Rule 17(6) PCR]**) - No overcharging (**[s17(7) PCR]**) - What constitutes overcharging (**[Rule 17(8) PCR]**) - Fees chargable in a conflict situation (**[Rule 17(9) PCR]**) - Law Society of Singapore v Syn Kok Kay \[2023\] SGHC 7 - Law Society of Singapore v Low Yong Sen \[2009\] 1 SLR(R) 802 - - - - Law Society of Singapore v Ang Chin Peng \[2013\] 1 SLR 946 - PD 5.2.2 - Non-Refundable Deposit or Retainer; - PD 5.2.1 - Fee Arrangements with Clients; - PD 5.2.3 - Two-Thirds Rule; - PD 5.1.1 - Equity in Lieu of Fees. - \(4) Contingency fees prohibited (**[Rule 18 PCR]**) - Contingency fees are prohibited (Section 107 LPA); - Rule 18 PCR - Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju \[2013\] 4 SLR 91 - **[Rationale]** behind s107 LPA and Rule 18 PCR - Exception to the rule against champerty - Law Society of Singapore v Lau See Jin Jeffrey \[2017\] SGHC 30 - C.f. Legis Point LLC v Tay Choon Ai \[2017\] SGHC 325 - \(5) Sharing fees with unauthorised persons (**[Rule 19 PCR]**) - PD 5.4.1 -- Use of Debt Collectors for the Recovery of Legal Fees and Expenses - Sharing fees with unauthorised person (expired practicing certificate) who held himself out as legal practitioner: - Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh Jonathan \[2020\] SGHC 102