Judgment reserved on Law Society's application to disbar Lee Suet Fern over role in Lee Kuan Yew's will

SINGAPORE - Was Mrs Lee Suet Fern playing the role of lawyer or daughter-in-law in handling her father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew's will in 2013?

This was the question at the centre of arguments made by lawyers representing the Law Society and Mrs Lee on Thursday (Aug 13) in the disciplinary hearing before the Court of Three Judges.

The Law Society argued that Mrs Lee had acted as Mr Lee's lawyer, having received instructions from him and acted on them, and also cutting out his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, in the preparation and execution of the will.

In doing so, she had taken on the responsibilities of his lawyer, and so an implied retainer arose, said the society's lawyer, Ms Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership.

Also, there was clear conflict of interest, as her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger son of Mr Lee and brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, was a beneficiary of the will, she added.

She asked the court, the legal profession's highest disciplinary body, to uphold the findings of a disciplinary tribunal which found Mrs Lee guilty of professional misconduct in February, a charge that could see her disbarred as a lawyer if she is found guilty.

Countering this, Senior Counsels Kenneth Tan and Walter Woon, who represented Mrs Lee, argued that she acted primarily as a daughter-in-law rather than a lawyer and was merely performing an administrative role.

In helping the senior Mr Lee with his will, she was showing affection and concern and assisting him in a legal matter he hoped to settle, said Mr Tan.

Prof Woon also argued that since the senior Mr Lee had consented to Mrs Lee acting for him, this nullified any conflict of interest.

They urged the court to dismiss all the charges against Mrs Lee.

[[nid:478973]]

The lawyers from both sides made the arguments in a nearly six-hour hearing held over video conferencing, with the judges, lawyers and parties involved dialling in, and members of the public and journalists watching the proceedings on TV screens in court.

Arguing that Mrs Lee had contravened Section 832(B) of the Legal Profession Act and Rule 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, Ms Koh said Mrs Lee had assumed the role of the senior Mr Lee's lawyer, despite knowing her husband stood to gain from the will.

She submitted that Mrs Lee, a lawyer of 37 years' standing, should have known to ask the senior Mr Lee to seek independent advice. But instead, she had sent him what she said was a 2011 draft copy of his first will to sign and arranged for lawyers from her firm to engross it, making it his final legal will.

This came after the senior Mr Lee expressed his wish to his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa, to revert to his first will after having signed six wills over the years.

In doing so, Mrs Lee also knew that Ms Kwa was not available and she took it upon herself to be responsible for the contents of the final will, Ms Koh said.

The last will differed from the one before it and also did not contain some changes that he had wanted and discussed with Ms Kwa four days earlier.

Among the differences is that the last will contained a demolition clause - relating to the demolition of his 38 Oxley Road house after his death - which had been drafted for previous versions of the will, but was subsequently deleted in the later versions, including the penultimate one.

It also differed in the share of the estate bequeathed to each of Mr Lee's children.

In his sixth and penultimate will, his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, was to have a larger share of his estate, but in the last will, all his three children received equal shares.

Ms Koh said Mrs Lee did not advise the senior Mr Lee on the differences between the draft last will and the penultimate will.

She added that even if there was no implied retainer between Mrs Lee and Mr Lee, Mrs Lee had acted improperly, resulting in the senior Mr Lee not getting independent legal advice even though she knew her husband was to be the recipient of a "substantial gift".

Rebutting these arguments, Mr Tan contended that the Law Society had not proven that Mrs Lee had acted as the senior Mr Lee's lawyer and that she did not deserve to be sanctioned.

He argued that she acted primarily as a daughter-in-law rather than a lawyer and pointed out that her e-mail to Mr Lee in which she forwarded a copy of the draft will had been copied to Ms Kwa for engrossment.

She arranged for lawyers from her own firm, Morgan Lewis Stamford, to do the engrossment later, as Ms Kwa was unavailable, Mr Tan said. Ms Kwa was also sent a copy of the final will after Mr Lee had signed it, he added.

Mr Tan said Mr Lee had been clear about his desire to revert to an earlier will, not to author a new one. He also carefully read the will sent to him by Mrs Lee and was satisfied with it.

Mrs Lee's role should therefore be viewed as a purely administrative one, Mr Tan said.

Prof Woon argued that Mrs Lee did not breach her duties even if she had acted as Mr Lee's lawyer.

He said Mr Lee was lucid and in control of his faculties, unlike the tribunal's portrayal of him as a "doddering old dotard" being taken advantage of by his son and daughter-in-law.

Prof Woon also said there could be no conflict of interest if the senior Mr Lee chose to go ahead with Mrs Lee as his lawyer, regardless of their relationship.

He acknowledged that Mrs Lee may have committed a technical breach of the rules in doing so, but he argued that there was still no meaningful case for sanctions to be imposed, as the senior Mr Lee's decision to revert to the earlier will had been made before Mrs Lee's involvement, and Mrs Lee was also not aware that it would increase her husband's share of the inheritance.

He added that it would have been an insult to the senior Mr Lee's intelligence for Mrs Lee to decline to help and suggest he should get independent advice, as it would "imply he doesn't know what he's doing".

"He would have exploded and the sound would travel all the way to the Istana. It had already been arrived at. He was a brilliant lawyer himself and knew what he wanted," Prof Woon said adding that this shows the senior Mr Lee could not possibly have been taken advantage of.

The three judges - Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash and Justice Woo Bih Li - reserved judgment, and their decision will be released at a later date.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.