COURT OF 3 JUDGES TO DECIDE IF LEE SUET FERN SHOULD BE DISBARRED

This article was first published on 11 August 2020 by the onlinecitizen at: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/08/11/court-of-3-judges-to-decide-if-lee-suet-fern-should-be-disbarred/

This Thursday, 13 August 2020, a Court of Three Judges will be considering whether Lee Suet Fern, a practising lawyer of 37 years' standing, should be disbarred for legal professional misconduct. 

Lee Suet Fern is the wife of Lee Hsien Yang and the daughter-in-law of Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Hsien Yang is one of the three beneficiaries of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate.

The charges of misconduct were brought against Lee Suet Fern by the Law Society of Singapore (the Society) following a complaint filed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to the Society on 4 December 2018.  As the complaint came from the AGC, the Society is by law mandated to apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The Society’s charges against Lee Suet Fern relate to her involvement in the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will signed on 17 December 2013.

From 20 August 2011 to 17 December 2013, Lee Kuan Yew made a total of seven Wills.  By operation of law, each new Will superceded the previous Will.  Lee Kuan Yew signed the Last Will on 17 December 2013.  Two lawyers came to Lee Kuan Yew’s house to witness his execution of the Last Will. 

On 2 January 2014, Lee Kuan Yew on his own prepared and signed a Codicil to his Last Will.  He arranged his own witnesses.  A ‘codicil’ is a formally executed document made after a will that adds to, subtracts from, or changes the will.  The Codicil bequeathed two carpets to Lee Hsien Yang.

Lee Kuan Yew passed away on 23 March 2015. Probate was granted on the basis of the Last Will on 6 October 2015.

On 13 February 2019, two practising lawyers, Sarjit Singh Gill and Yee Kee Shian Leon, were appointed by the Chief Justice as the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the Society’s charges against Lee Suet Fern.

The issues at stake before the Disciplinary Tribunal were essentially:

1.       Whether Lee Suet Fern and Lee Kuan Yew stood in a solicitor-client relationship i.e. was there an Implied Retainer; and 

2.       If Lee Kuan Yew was her client, did she fail her client to the extent of professional misconduct.

Lee Suet Fern pleaded not guilty to all the charges.  The Disciplinary Tribunal conducted a five-day hearing from 1 to 5 July 2020.  During the hearing, Lee Suet Fern and Lee Hsien Yang were cross-examined on the witness stand by the Society’s lawyers on their testimonies. 

On 18 February 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal released their decision.  The Disciplinary Tribunal concluded Yes on the two questions.

The Disciplinary Tribunal agreed with the Society that Lee Suet Fern and Lee Kuan Yew stood in a solicitor-client relationship.  The Disciplinary Tribunal said that Lee Suet Fern had failed to advance her client’s interest, instead she had promoted her own interest and/or the interest of her husband, Lee Hsien Yang ahead of her client's interest. She also failed her duty to advise Lee Kuan Yew to be independently advised in respect of his intention to give a one-third share of his estate to Lee Hsien Yang. 

Given the Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings against Lee Suet Fern, the Court of Three Judges will now determine if the Respondent should be disbarred.

 The Society's case against Lee Suet Fern is about a solicitor's legal professional duties, how a solicitor should conduct himself when he deals with his client and what amounts to professional misconduct. 

The Society's case against Lee Suet Fern is not about whether Lee Kuan Yew was aware or unaware the Last Will contained the Demolition Clause.   In a statement published by the AGC on 7 January 2019 to announce that the AGC had filed a complaint of professional misconduct involving Lee Suet Fern, the AGC stated that their complaint did not relate to the validity of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will.

Doubts as to whether Lee Kuan Yew was aware his Last Will contained the Demolition Clause was publicly raised by Lee Hsien Loong on 15 June 2017 who said a “series of events led me to be very troubled by the circumstances surrounding the Last Will.”

Notwithstanding Lee Hsien Loong had publicised his unhappiness with Lee Suet Fern’s involvement in the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will, Lee Hsien Loong is not the Complainant nor a party to the proceedings against Lee Suet Fern. 

As earlier mentioned in this article, the case against Lee Suet Fern was initiated by AGC.  More accurately, it was filed by Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee, as Attorney-General Lucien Wong had recused himself from the case against Lee Suet Fern. Lucien Wong had been Lee Hsien Loong’s personal lawyer prior to becoming the Attorney-General.

In their 7 January 2019 statement, the AGC referenced their statutory duty to deal with misconduct by lawyers as the basis for filing their complaint against Lee Suet Fern. The AGC said that when the AGC becomes aware of possible professional misconduct, it is required to consider if the matter should be referred to the Society.  In this case, AGC became aware of a possible case of professional misconduct by Lee Suet Fern. The AGC statement did not say how the AGC became or was made aware of possible professional misconduct by Lee Suet Fern in respect of the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will.

Notwithstanding Lee Hsien Loong’s misgivings with Lee Suet Fern’s involvement in the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will, the focus of the Disciplinary Tribunal was on what Lee Suet Fern should or should not have done, rather than on whether Lee Kuan Yew was aware or unaware of the Demolition Clause when he signed the Last Will.

The Court of Three Judges hearing the case this Thursday comprises Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon,

Justice Judith Prakash and Justice Woo Bih Li.

Although the next step following the Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings against Lee Suet Fern is for the Court of Three Judges to decide if Lee Suet Fern should be struck off the roll, the powers of the Court of Three Judges are not limited to that role. 

The Court of Three Judges is not bound to accept the findings and decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal.  If the Court of Three Judges does not agree with the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal, it has the power to set aside the determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal, direct Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear and reinvestigate the complaint, or even order the appointment of another Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint.

We shall see in the coming days whether the Court of Three Judges agrees with Disciplinary Tribunal’s conclusions or not; and if the Court does, then whether the Court considers it would be an appropriate sanction to strike Lee Suet Fern off the roll.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer of 30 years’ standing.  Wills & Probate is one of her areas of specialisation. 

UNCONSCIONABLE TO HOLD GE AT THIS TIME

Today, Singaporeans are facing the closest thing to war since our nation gained independence. We are fighting an invisible enemy which moves in stealth and strikes in unpredictable ways. Our everyday lives are disrupted. We are hunkering down in preparation for a siege of uncertain duration.

In this unprecedented time, we are looking towards our government to lead us. We will have to trust in the judgment of our elected leaders.

I only have good things to say about how our leadership has been managing the COVID19 crisis - until now.

For despite the fact that we are in the midst of battle, the PAP Government has all but announced that the next General Election (GE) will be held within the next two months. This is crazy. Why the rush to hold the next GE?

The PAP Government is giving the explanation that the COVID19 crisis is not going to be resolved anytime soon, so we better hold the GE now than later.

I beg to differ. Two weeks ago, I would have been prepared to go along with the "let's do this now, rather than later" rationale. Looking at what is happening as we speak, I think the window - the figurative "calm before the storm" - has closed. We are now not only in battle mode but also bracing for the battle to escalate in the days ahead. Holding the GE at this juncture cannot but serve as a distraction when all efforts must be focused on managing and coping with the COVID19 crisis.

General election is a defining event in a democratic society. Leaders and citizens are required to give their due attention and focus on the electoral process. Once elected, our leaders have authority over our lives and livelihood for the next four to five years. It would be a betrayal of our nation's values as enshrined in our Constitution for the Prime Minister's Office to relegate the GE to a passing formality, to treat such a crucial event as something that we need to "get out of the way". If neither the incumbent nor the citizenry have the bandwidth to give sufficient attention to the electoral process, then the responsible thing to do is to defer it to a better time.

Many concerned citizens have already spoken out against holding the next GE and to urge the Prime Minister to defer the GE until the crisis has abated. They have also said that they would not fault the PAP Government if the next GE is deferred beyond the statutory deadline of April 2021. With so much as stake, I feel compelled to add my voice in support of such views.

I do believe that we will eventually prevail over this crisis. It is only a matter time that we learn more about and understand better the enemy and its ways. Effective mitigating techniques and countermeasures like vaccines will eventually be developed. The element of surprise can only be used once. So, I think the better wisdom is to defer the GE for at least another year.

Our nation identifies itself as being a democracy. Democracy is all about the citizenry being able to choose our leaders. If we go to the polls within the next two months, I feel it will be tantamount to the incumbent holding our citizens to ramson: vote us back, or else you will be at the mercy of COVID19. The incumbent is already in the driver's seat in the COVID19 battle and we are depending on them to lead us out of the woods. For anyone wishing to capitalize on the reluctance to change the status quo and to leverage on the fear of succumbing to the physical and economical impact of COVID19, now is the best time.

When votes are cast in fear of life and livelihood, is the election free and fair?

Are we upholding the tenets of democracy to hold the GE at the time when Singaporeans are facing their worst crisis in the history our nation?

Is it conscionable for the PAP Government to hold the GE at this time?

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss