EPR Video Lecture 3 - Conflicts of Interest PDF

00:01 Welcome to Ethics and Professional Responsibility. We will be covering the topic of conflicts of interest today. Specifically, we will cover two topics. First, conflict or potential conflicts of interest of current client and former client. This covers situations where you might have to act a...

00:01 Welcome to Ethics and Professional Responsibility. We will be covering the topic of conflicts of interest today. Specifically, we will cover two topics. First, conflict or potential conflicts of interest of current client and former client. This covers situations where you might have to act against the interest of a previous client that you represented. For example, you may have acted for company A, closed the file, a couple of months 00:30 and a new brief comes along, and it turns out you might not have to act against the interests of company A. What should you do? The first topic covers the classical situations like this. The second topic, conflict or potential conflicts of interest between two or more clients. This covers situations where you may be acting for multiple clients and their interests diverge. What should you do? Can you still take the matter on? Do you keep quiet about it? 00:58 or do you have to inform your client of the multiple interests? The second topic covers scenarios like this. Now let us move on to the new PCR Rule 21, which is a new rule that was introduced in the present PCR Rules of 2015. Basically it replaces the old Rule 31 of the earlier PCR Rules, which we will come to shortly later. 01:25 The solicitor is not permitted to represent a current client if three conditions are met. The first condition, if the solicitor holds confidential information which belongs to the former client. The second condition, if the current client has an interest that is reasonably expected to be adverse to the former client\'s interest. And the third condition, if the information that the solicitor holds is reasonably expected 01:55 be material or important to the representation of the current client. 02:02 Rule 21 basically reflects two guiding principles, which are found in rule 21 sub rule 1. Basically, the duties of loyalty and confidentiality which is owed by a solicitor and his or her law practice continues after the termination of the retainer. The basic idea is your duty of confidentiality to your former client continues even after your retainer has ended. If your engagement with your current client 02:31 puts the confidential information that you obtained by virtue of your former engagement with your former client into prejudice. If that happens, you should consider withdrawing from the current engagement. Now, there are exceptions, even if the three conditions we have just discussed are met. The new PCR Rule 21 still allows you to act for a former client if 1. You have adequately advised the former client to obtain independent legal advice as to the situation at hand. 03:01 and second, the former client has given you the informed consent in writing for you to continue to act for the current client. The new PCR Rule 21 also takes a very pragmatic approach. If despite your reasonable efforts, you are not able to satisfy the requirements under Sub-Rule 3a and b, which is the procurement of independent legal advice and written consent from your former client, 03:27 Rule 21 still allows you to act for a current client if two conditions are met. First, you have adequate safeguards in place to protect the confidential information belonging to your former client. And two, you have made reasonable efforts to notify the former client of one, those safeguards and two, the fact that you will continue to act for your current client. Now let us compare the new PCR Rule 21 with the former PCR Rule 31. 03:59 Essentially, the former PCR rule 31 focuses on whether you are acting for the current client on the same or related subject matter which you had previously acted for the former client. 04:13 In this regard, the old rules also have exceptions and focuses on whether the practice has acted in the similar or related subject matter, and whether confidential information has been disseminated to members of the law practice. You will notice that even though the present PCR rules are no longer framed in such words, one important condition, i.e. the second condition, is whether you engaged with the current client in a way that will require you to take an adverse interest against your former client. 04:42 In this sense, the cases on the old PCR rule 31 are still useful because they will give you a good idea of what is considered the same or related subject matter, and therefore an idea of what constitutes a scenario under the new PCR rule 21 where your current client will have to take an adverse interest against a former client. 05:02 Now let us look at some of the old cases under the former Rule 31 and see how they have added the new Rule 21. 05:11 The first case is a lush John Federicks case. In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for misrepresentations which induced the plaintiff to enter into agreements to buy shares in a certain company called Stain B Limited. The defendant then applied for an injunction to restrain the plaintiff\'s lawyer from acting for the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff\'s lawyer had previously acted for the defendant in matters relating to the shares of Stain B Limited, i.e. the same company. 05:39 The defendant says that these were the same or related proceedings as the present proceedings. The plaintiff\'s position, however, was that under Rule 31 of all rules, a matter was related only if confidential information was conveyed to the lawyer in the previous matter with the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that they did not obtain any confidential information from their lawyer relating to the previous matter with the defendant. After hearing parties 06:06 The court allowed the defendant\'s application to restrain the plaintiff\'s lawyer and found that 1. For two matters to be related, it was not always necessary that the lawyer had received confidential information that are relevant to the subsequent suit. Ultimately, it is always the substance of a form approach. 2. The court also said that the rationale of the old rule 31 was to ensure that the public retained their confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. And 3. In this case, 06:35 The court held that the previous case and the current case are indeed related, as it dealt with matters arising from the very same subject matter. So what are the implications of this case? First, while the new Rule 21 sub-rule 2 now states that you must be holding on to confidential information, that is material to your present dispute. The last John Frederick\'s case is still relevant because the guiding principle set up on the case is still applicable. 07:04 Ultimately, at the end of the day, the old rule 31 and the new rule 21 are both intended to ensure that the public retains faith and confidence in the solicitor-client relationship of trust and the integrity of the legal profession. Secondly, this case is also relevant because it explains that matters are related if you deal with the same subject matter. Similarly, under the new rule 21, 07:30 If the previous case and the current case are in respect of matters arising from the same subject matter in dispute, one can infer that possibly the former client and the current client will potentially be taking adverse positions against one another in the current proceedings. The last John Frederick case was also applied in the Nohayati case which came later. The Nohayati case also involved a similar case where by the plaintiff\'s help to restrain the defendant\'s lawyer. 07:58 on the basis that the defendant\'s lawyer had acted in related matters involving the plaintiff previously. What was noteworthy was the court\'s reference to what is considered related matters. It said that any two matters were clearly related if any information which a former client previously imparted in confidence for the purpose of the earlier matter is relevant to a later matter. The court also made useful reference to Rule 3.01 of the UK Solicitor\'s Code of Conduct. 08:25 which states that a related matter will always include any other matter dealing with the same asset or liability. In such circumstances where the current matter deals with the same asset or liability, you can expect the second and third conditions under the new Rule 21 to be satisfied, which is that your current client is taking adverse interest against your former client and the confidential information that you hold is material to the representation of your current client. 08:54 At the end of the day, the court also ended off with a quote from the ethics committee, which explained the purpose of the law encoding constraints upon lawyers acting against the interests of former clients. The committee reiterated what was said in the last John Frederick case, but what was interesting was the committee\'s reminder that at the end of the day, when we talk about confidential information, we are really speaking of information that is accessible, i.e. information that remains confidential. 09:23 and can reasonably be remembered or recalled upon triggering the memory. Now this is useful for us to consider the ambit of Condition 1 of the new Rule 21 Sub 2A which states that the lawyer must hold confidential information belonging to the former client. Another way of looking at whether two matters are related or if the interests of the party are adverse is to ask whether the interests are aligned. This was suggested in the India International Insurance case. 09:53 where the court said that in respect of a third party suit, the interests of the plaintiff and defendant were largely aligned, in that both would have wanted to limit their liabilities to the third party. Therefore, the defendant\'s objections based on the old Rule 31, that her former solicitor should not act in that matter, did not bring her argument very far. We now turn to the second topic, PCR Rule 20, which deals with conflict between two or more clients. 10:21 PCR Rule 20 envisages two scenarios of conflict. First, before the lawyer takes on the matter, and second, when the lawyer is already acting for the relevant parties, and the diversity of interests develops between the parties. Under the rules, each party is called a relevant party. Now for the first scenario, i.e. before the lawyer takes on the matter, we look at Rules 20, Sub-Rule 2, 3, 4, and 7. 10:49 Basically, rule 20 sub rule 2 says that PCR rule 23, 4 and 7 apply when the lawyer intends to act for two or more parties and where there is a diversity of interests. The whole of rule 20 sub rule 3 then goes on to set out what a lawyer must do before he or she can accept instructions. For instance, the first thing a lawyer must do is to explain the divergence of interests to the relevant parties and also explain how the lawyer or law firm 11:18 is prevented from disclosing information to a relevant party that is obtained from another relevant party, or two, prevented from giving advice to a relevant party that is prejudicial to another relevant party. Further, the lawyer must also tell the relevant two or more clients that one, he is to stop acting if he cannot properly deal with the divergent interests, two, he is to answer and deal with queries raised by clients on the risks of the divergent interests. 11:48 And three, he is to properly ascertain the intentions of all these relevant multiple climates. 11:55 As for transactions, they are clearly disadvantageous to a relevant party. Rule 20 sub Rule 3b also provides that the lawyer must explain the detriment to the relevant client and to check if the relevant client is acting under any undue influence. In addition, the lawyer must also advise the relevant client to get separate legal advice, and if no independent advice is obtained, the relevant client must provide a written confirmation that he has declined to get such advice. 12:25 and to give informed consent in writing that the lawyer can act for all relevant parties. After the lawyer has done all that and he takes on the matter, the lawyer must continue to remain vigilant and look out for conflicts, and he shall inform the relevant parties of such conflicts when they arise, and to cease to act if he cannot properly deal with these divergent interests. If you recall, I mentioned earlier that Rule 20 captures two scenarios. 12:56 before a lawyer intends to take on the matter and accept the instructions, and two, when a conflict arises between two or more clients while the matter is already underway. These same obligations to stay vigilant, etc. that we\'ve just discussed are also mirrored in Rule 20, Section 05 and 6, which apply to the second scenario where a conflict arises when the lawyer is already acting for the parties. 13:21 At the end of the day, even though PCR Rule 20 states that you must cease to act when you no longer can deal properly with the divergent interests at hand, there is an exception set out in Rule 20 sub-Rule 7, which is that you can continue to act for a relevant party if you stop acting for all other parties whose interests diverge, and all those parties whom you stopped acting for give the consent in writing that you can continue to act in the matter. 13:51 We now move on to some of the cases, which are again based on the old rules, but are still relevant as they showcase some of the classic scenarios where a conflict of interest arises when a lawyer acts for two or more clients with divergent interests. As the cases emphasize, acting for multiple clients is not in and of itself improper, it is permissible. The question is whether the interests of the relevant parties are adequately protected. Therefore, in like Henry Rusley, 14:20 The court in this case stated that, while it is prudent not to act for multiple parties in one single transaction, this prudent approach does not, however, call into question the actual legitimacy of the practice of acting for multiple parties. While acting for multiple parties is not in and of itself wrong, a lawyer must discharge himself if he has difficulty in advising the multiple clients consistently and evenly. 14:47 As you will recall, this is substantively the same obligations which are now set up in the new rule 20 sub-rule 4 and sub-rule 6. 14:58 The cases also set out some precautions that a lawyer should take when representing multiple clients. You should read the LSS case, which sets out some of these obligations and precautions. First, you have to advise clients of the risks and consequences of multiple representations and of the actual potential conflict that could arise. Two, you should also ask the client to get independent legal advice. And three, 15:26 More importantly, you should keep proper documents and attendance notes to show that you have adequately advised the multiple clients of the risks involved. 15:36 In deciding whether a lawyer can act properly in representing multiple clients, you should also take note of two things. First, the fact that there is no self-dealing by the lawyer is irrelevant if the lawyer acted for multiple parties without taking the necessary precautions or advising the clients of the risks properly. Second, even if the clients are savvy and are aware of the possible conflicts at play, the rules state that the lawyer still has a burden. 16:06 to point it out properly. 16:10 We now move on to the Jane Rebecca Ong case, the facts of which are quite interesting. Basically, a partner in a law firm had acted for the estate of the first defendant\'s deceased husband. The partner then acted for the first defendant in proceedings against the second defendant, who was a co-administrator of the estate. The second defendant\'s lawyer then wrote a letter to the partner, highlighting that there is a possible conflict of interest here. 16:38 The law firm then applied for an order of court to cease acting for the first defendant. 16:44 The court held that 1. A lawyer can at any point in time point out to the lawyer on the other side, his counterpart, that he believes that there is a conflict of interest. 2. In such a case, the lawyer who may be in conflict cannot take a neutral position and leave it at the court to decide. At the end of the day, it is not the court\'s role to declare the propriety of whether a firm or lawyer should continue to act in a situation of potential conflict. 17:13 The point to take away is this. When faced with a potential conflict, it is the responsibility of every lawyer to decide for himself and make a call whether he should discharge himself or whether he can continue to act under the PCR rules. 17:30 As you will recall, in PCR Rule 20, Sub-Rule 7, it states that notwithstanding Rule 24 and 6, you can continue to act for a relevant party if you stop acting for all other parties whose interests diverge, and all those parties whom you stop acting for give that informed consent in writing that you can continue to act in the matter. This is also reflected in cases such as the Ahmad Khalis case. But 17:58 At the end of the day, what is informed consent? In this regard, the UK cases are useful. It is the consent given in the knowledge that there is a conflict between the parties and that as a result, the lawyer may be disabled from disclosing to each party the full knowledge which he possesses as to the matter or may be disabled from giving advice to one party which conflicts with the interests of another. 18:29 If you have time, you should also read the Surrender Singh Dhillon case, which provides a useful summary of all the principles discussed thus far at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 of that case. 18:46 Lastly, we come to the case of Fu Kuo Hing vs. Fu Ji Hing. This is not squarely a case of conflict of interest or more interrogatories and privilege, but it highlights some of the inherent risks of drug retainers if matters become contentious. In this case, the lawyer was the solicitor of both the plaintiff and defendant, and actor for their joint purchase of shares in the company. The dispute then arose between the plaintiff and defendant. 19:14 subsequently over the purchase. The plaintiff then served interrogatories on the lawyer for certain information relating to the purchase. In this case, the court held that the privilege was a joint one, belonging to the defendant and the plaintiff. And when we speak of privilege, it is in respect of disclosure of the third parties. In this case, there is no question of privilege in respect of the interrogatories served since the disclosure was as between the plaintiff 19:44 and defendant as joint clients and not with third parties. 19:50 Your challenge, at the end of the day, is to make sense of the new rules and fill in the contents and substance of the new rules with the old cases. This presentation is just a road map and one suggestion of how you can do so. To sum up and conclude, Rule 21 is concerned with conflicts of interest with your former client. The old cases are useful in that if you are dealing with the same subject matter or dealing with the same asset or liability, 20:18 There is a higher chance you are taking an adverse interest against your former client or you are dealing with confidential information from your former client that is material to your representation of your current client. 20:31 As for Rule 20, it is primarily about diversity of interests between two or more clients and the precautions the lawyer has to take. The old cases that I like Henry Rusley give you an idea of the safeguards needed under Rule 20 sub Rule 3. Similarly, the old cases also touch on the concept of informed consent, which is a big idea under Rule 20. 20:54 Lastly, if you have time, you should also read the practice directions set out in your syllabus on Rule 20, which sets out further specific scenarios in context-specific transactions. Thank you. 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