[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Lead attorney Lee Suet Fern has been suspended for 15 months by the Three Judge Court for handling the last will of her late father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew.
In a written judgment delivered on Friday (November 20), the highest disciplinary body of the legal profession found Ms. Lee guilty of misconduct improper by a defender and attorney, saying that she had “blindly followed the instructions of her husband, a significant beneficiary under the very will whose execution helped to hasten ”.
The case focused on the role that Ms. Lee played in preparing and executing Mr. Lee’s last will, which was signed on December 17, 2013.
His last will differed from his sixth and penultimate wills in significant ways, including the distribution of his estate among his three children, as well as the demolition of his home at 38 Oxley Road. It also did not contain some changes that he had wanted and discussed with his regular lawyer Kwa Kim Li four days earlier.
A disciplinary court (DT) had found Ms Lee guilty of grossly inappropriate professional conduct in February this year.
The Court held a virtual hearing in August, where the Law Society made its case as to why Ms. Lee should be disbarred for her handling of the will. Ms. Lee’s attorneys asked that all charges be dropped.
An ‘unseemly rush’
In its 98-page ruling, the court, consisting of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Appellate Judge Judith Prakash and Judge Woo Bih Li, said that Ms Lee had acted at her husband’s urging to advance the execution. of the will in an “unseemly” way. rush”.
The will was signed just 16 hours after Ms. Lee first sent a draft to Mr. Lee senior.
The court said that Ms Lee had sent the draft, which had to be based on the first will, without verifying whether it was the correct version.
[[nid:498496]]In fact, Ms Lee knew that she was not in a position to verify it as she had not been involved in the execution of the first will, the court added.
Even then, he agreed to let Mr. Lee’s main attorney, Ms. Kwa Kim Li, stay out of the last will-related settlement, the court said.
Ms. Kwa was the attorney who had executed the first will.
Despite these factors, Ms. Lee had allowed Mr. Lee to proceed to execute the last will, arranging for her Stamford Law colleagues, Bernard Lui and Elizabeth Kong, to be the witnesses.
The court said that Ms. Lee had done so even though she admitted that the older Mr. Lee would have believed and trusted her statements.
She added that after the last will was executed, Ms. Lee did not fully and frankly inform Ms. Kwa about everything that had happened.
Ms. Lee’s conduct was made worse by the fact that she knew her husband was a significant beneficiary under the last will, the court said, adding that she had faced divided loyalties.
“On the one hand, (she) was loyal to her husband, who was a significant beneficiary under the last will and who was evidently eager to hasten her execution.
“On the other hand, (she) had a responsibility to act honorably and to ensure that (Mr. Lee Kuan Yew), whom she would have reasonably considered her client, was fully informed of the factual position before she proceeded to execute the last will be.
“Even in the absence of an implicit advance, the potential conflict of interest presented by these divided loyalties must have been apparent to the defendant,” the court said.
[[nid:478519]]He added that if there had been an attorney-client relationship between Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee superior, their conduct would have “constituted a serious violation of their duties,” even without taking into account the conflict of interest that might have arisen.
In this case, the court said, she “not only failed to act prudently, but in fact acted with total disregard for the interests of (Mr. Lee Kuan Yew).”
“In these circumstances, the fact that she did not end her husband’s efforts to secure the execution of the last will in undue haste can only be described as improper and unacceptable,” the court added.
But the court said it disagreed with some of the court’s findings, in particular that there was an implicit advance between Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee senior and that they were in an attorney-client relationship.
The court also said that Ms. Lee did not receive instructions or directions directly from Mr. Lee senior.
Suet Fern responds
In a statement posted on Facebook by her husband Lee Hsien Yang on Friday, Ms Lee said that she did not agree with the decision.
“There was no basis for this case to have been started. This was a private will, ”he said.
Lee Kuan Yew knew what he wanted. He got what he wanted. The Court of Three did not find that he was in a state of mental health or not in control. He made the decision to go back to his historic 2011 will after speaking with his attorney Kwa Kim Li before I was tasked with finding a witness. Anyone can revoke their own will while they are alive. ”Ms. Lee’s role in handling the last will had prompted a complaint from the Attorney General to the Lawyers Society in January last year about possible professional misconduct.
