Three Lawyers Suspended For Touting

Source : The Business Times, Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Court rules that evidence procurred through entrapment is admissible.

A DISCIPLINARY court yesterday suspended three lawyers who had touted for conveyancing work, after ruling that entrapment evidence against the trio was admissible.

In separate cases, a private investigator obtained evidence through video and audio recordings that the lawyers had touted for work.

In defence, the lawyers had argued that the evidence should not be admitted because it had been obtained through entrapment by the private investigator.

However, the Court of Three Judges ruled yesterday that entrapment evidence can be admitted, whether it is done by law enforcement officers or lawyers for the purpose of bringing disciplinary proceedings against them.

The court also said that a prosecution based on entrapment evidence would be allowed if it was done to determine the accused person’s guilt.

The three lawyers are suspended from practising for between nine and 15 months.

In one of the cases, private investigator Jenny Lee contacted lawyer Lilian Bay, claiming to be a real estate agent for a prospective property buyer who needed a conveyancing lawyer.

Ms Lee met Bay the next day and asked if Bay would pay a referral fee.

In response, Bay wrote ‘10 per cent’ on a piece of paper and gave it to Ms Lee.

Ms Lee also mentioned the possibility of referring transactions to Bay and asked what she would get in referral fees.

Bay said that she would pay a flat referral fee of $100 per case.

Bay was subsequently charged by the Law Society on the basis of these incidents.

The Disciplinary Committee (DC), an independent body appointed by the Chief Justice, found that Bay’s misconduct was not severe enough for disciplinary action and imposed a penalty of $7,000.

But the Law Society disagreed and applied for Bay to appear before the court.

The facts in the other two cases involving lawyers James Liew and Phyllis Tan were similar.

The court found that the DC’s admission of the evidence against the lawyers meant that the Law Society had proven its case against each of them.

The court also ordered the lawyers to pay the costs of the Law Society in the disciplinary proceedings before itself and the DC.