Lee Suet Fern (LSF), lawyer and wife of Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), has been suspended for 15 months over the handling of the last will of the late Lee Kuan Yew's (LKY).

In a 99-page written judgement released on Nov. 20, the Court of Three Judges, which comprises of Chief Justice Menon, Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash and Justice Woo Bih Li, stated that LSF had been found guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.

The court, which is highest disciplinary body dealing with lawyers' misconduct, added that it had taken the following four factors into consideration for LSF's sentencing:

• Her motivation for her misconduct which primarily stemmed from her "singular" focus in achieving the interests of her husband, while oblivious to LKY's interests,
• Her "considerable" involvement in ensuring the execution of LKY's last will, which contrasted with her lack of diligence in ensuring that LKY's wishes were properly ascertained and carried out, and that he was fully apprised of all the facts, and
• The absence of her attempt to contact, Kwa Kim Li, who had prepared the wills of LKY, and been excluded from all the emails pertaining to LKY's last will since LHY’s email sent on Dec. 16, 2013, 7.31pm, until after the will in question was executed,
• LSF's own experience as a solicitor of more than 30 years’ standing, which meant her conduct was "wholly unacceptable and inexcusable".

LSF didn't act properly in her dealings with LKY over his last will

In elaborating on LSF's behaviour, the court explained that her professional conduct was "objectionable" on the following counts:

• Putting forth the last will's draft to LKY and stating that it reflected his testamentary wishes and could be executed as his will, even though she had not verified his instructions herself, and had not advised him that she was in no position to make those representations,
• Her own concession that LKY would have believed her representations and relied on them for the last will's draft,
• The compounding of her actions by the fact that her husband was a significant beneficiary under the last will,
• The fact that such conduct would have constituted a serious breach of her duties, had there been a solicitor-client relationship between her and LKY,
• Allowing LKY to proceed with the will's execution despite all of the aforementioned circumstances, and the exclusion of Kwa, the only person who could check LSF's representations from the process,
• Not informing Kwa about the events that had transpired after the last will was executed, and
• The need to assess her behaviour "in light of her divided loyalties" to her husband on one hand, who was "evidently keen to rush its execution", and her responsibility towards LKY on the other, in acting honourably and reasonably considering the late man as her client.

The court then summed up LSF's behaviour as both a failure of prudence and a failure in informing LKY that her representations of the last will were unverified.

This therefore meant that she acted in "complete disregard" of his interests, and that her failure to stop LHY's efforts to procure the execution of the last will with "unseemly haste" was also "unacceptable and improper."

"Not telling the truth"

The court agreed with and affirmed the disciplinary tribunal (DT)'s finding that LHY "was not telling the truth" when he said that he was the one who had forwarded the Draft Last Will to the Respondent.

The court also agreed with and affirmed the DT’s finding that the LSF’s evidence on this issue, which echoed LHY’s, was "similarly untrue and to be rejected".

The court noted that LSF's "conduct was especially unsatisfactory" because there was in fact no reasonable basis for concluding that Kwa Kim Li, the late LKY's lawyer, would remain uncontactable.

On the contrary, the court noted that the evidence showed that Kwa was very much contactable, as she responded within a short time of receiving the email which the Respondent sent her at 1.16pm on 17 December 2013 after the execution of the Last Will.

LHY: My wife disagrees with the decision

Meanwhile, in a statement posted to Facebook, LHY said that his wife disagreed with the decision.

According to LSF:

"Lee Kuan Yew knew what he wanted. He got what he wanted. The Court of Three did not find that he was of unsound mind or that he was not in control. He made the decision to revert to his landmark 2011 will following discussions with his lawyer Kwa Kim Li before I was tasked to find a witness. Anyone can revoke their own will while they are alive."

She added:

"The Court of Three found “no solicitor-client relationship existed” between Lee Kuan Yew and myself. The Court found there was no dishonesty in my dealings with Lee Kuan Yew and there was no finding that the will was procured by fraud or undue influence."

https://mothership.sg/2020/02/lee-suet-fern-disciplinary-tribunal-improper-conduct/

Totally unrelated but follow and listen to our podcast here

Left Screenshot from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP YouTube, right photo by Matthias Ang