Lawyers In Trouble: In The Soup Again Over Conflict Of Interest

Source : The Straits Times, Apr 7, 2008

Three counsel have become the first this year to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which hears cases of serious misconduct by lawyers. Law Correspondent K.C. Vijayan reports

SUSPENDED lawyer Vasantha Vardan will have to face the Court of Three Judges again on four new charges involving different clients - in circumstances similar to that for which she was penalised over a year ago.

In November 2006, she was found guilty of acting improperly in the case of a property agent who fleeced his clients, and was suspended for two years.

She had acted for the property agent as well as his clients, placing herself in a conflict-of-interest situation.

Ms Vardan, a lawyer since 1994, had failed to explain the contents of the documents to the clients - a couple trying to sell their home - and they ended up being cheated by housing agent Shaik Raheem Abdul Shaik Shaikh Dawood in 2001.

Shaik, 55, is serving 22 months behind bars for cheating.

In the present charges, Ms Vardan is said to have acted improperly in relation to three other couples and another woman who went to Shaik to sell their HDB flats and ended up short-changed by him.

The complainants were generally illiterate couples who were cash-strapped. The complaints occurred in 2001.

The disciplinary committee found no dishonesty on Ms Vardan’s part, but held that she had placed herself in a conflict- of-interest position.

Senior Counsel Tan Tee Jim, prosecuting for the Law Society, said Ms Vardan had placed her own as well as Shaik’s interests over those of the complainants. ‘Members of the profession would be well advised to avoid all such situations of conflict of interest and to conscientiously advance the interests of their clients.’

Her lawyer, Mr Thangavelu, urged the committee to reprimand her or impose a fine instead of referring the case to the Court of Three Judges. Rejecting the plea, the committee said these were serious breaches of duty.

Entrapment defence fails in touting case

ENTRAPMENT as a defence did not save lawyer Rayney Wong from being referred to the Court of Three Judges for touting.

Mr Wong, a lawyer for the last 23 years, had offered referral fees to a Ms Jenny Lee, who had approached him with a property deal for his firm.

It turned out that Ms Lee was a private investigator working undercover, who recorded their conversations and then complained to the Law Society.

Ms Lee was part of a group of private investigators hired by some lawyers to check if competing law firms were offering fees to estate agents.

Faced with disciplinary committee hearings in 2005, Mr Wong refused to enter his defence then, claiming that Ms Lee’s evidence should be excluded because it was obtained by entrapment.

Mr Wong took this argument to the High Court and even to the Court of Appeal, but was turned down each time as the courts ruled that there was no entrapment.

When the case returned to the committee and it reconvened last year, Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the charge and urged the committee to reprimand or fine him instead of referring it to the Court of Three Judges.

His lawyer, Senior Counsel Sant Singh, said the fact that Mr Wong was entrapped and that he pleaded guilty were mitigating factors.

But the committee, chaired by Senior Counsel Steven Chong, said there was ‘no entrapment’, as Mr Wong offered the incentive to Ms Lee without incitement from her.

The committee also said it was ‘apparent’ this was not the first time Mr Wong had offered a referral fee.

It also said he decided to plead guilty only upon realising that his defence was almost certainly bound to fail and the guilty plea therefore carried ‘little weight’.

Accused of overcharging clients

A LAWYER has been referred to the Court of Three Judges for allegedly overcharging his clients.

It follows a hearing by a disciplinary committee, set up by the Chief Justice, which decided that lawyer Low Yong Sen had billed a couple three times more than what it felt would have been fair.

In all, Mr Low, a sole proprietor who has been in practice for about 15 years, billed his clients $4,300 in expenses he incurred in a property deal he handled for them in November 2005.

The committee felt $1,385 would have been a more reasonable amount, based on the Law Society’s submissions.

As part of that $4,300 bill, Mr Low had charged $1,850 for expenses related to his dealings with eight government departments.

The society’s valuation of that bit of work: $193.

For incidental expenses such as phone charges, Mr Low charged $350, seven times what the committee felt was reasonable.

A second misconduct charge involved Mr Low engaging his brother’s firm to undertake some services for his clients without informing them about their relationship, as required under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

Mr Low’s brother, Mr Michael Low, was also a secretary in his law firm.

The committee, chaired by Senior Counsel Steven Chong, held that the two charges were sufficiently serious to be referred to the Court of Three Judges.

The committee has alternative powers to fine or reprimand a lawyer if it considers the charge to be less serious.

Another charge for billing his clients $3,000 in legal fees was dropped as the committee felt it was not excessive.