SINGAPORE – A tribunal here today has found the lawyer who prepared and executed former Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, guilty of improper professional conduct and suspended her from practice for 15 months.
Lee Suet Fern had earlier taken responsibility for preparing and executing Kuan Yew’s will that was signed on December 17, 2013, the Singapore Straits Times reports.
It was argued, however, that the last will did not contain changes discussed with Kuan Yew’s lawyer, Kwa Kim Li, four days prior.
After the will was drafted, it was signed within 16 hours with details not made known to Kwa, who executed the first will. Even after the last will was completed, Suet Fern kept Kwa in the dark about the details.
Meanwhile, Suet Fern’s husband, Lee Hsien Yang, is also Kuan Yew’s youngest son, and a significant beneficiary under the last will.
“On the one hand, (she) was loyal to her husband, who was a significant beneficiary under the last will and who was evidently keen to rush its execution,” the court said.
“On the other hand, (she) had a responsibility to act honourably and to ensure that (Kuan Yew), who she would reasonably have regarded as her client, was fully apprised of the factual position before he proceeded to execute the last will.
“Even in the absence of an implied retainer, the potential conflict of interest presented by these divided loyalties must have been patent to the respondent.”
The drama unfolded in January last year when the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed a complaint with the Law Society about Suet Fern’s possible misconduct in the handling of the will.
In February, a two-person disciplinary tribunal found Suet Fern guilty of misleading and deceiving Kuan Yew on the preparation and execution of his last will.
Six months later, a virtual hearing was held. The Law Society accused Suet Fern of being involved in the preparation and execution of the will despite her husband’s vested interest and rushing her 90-year-old father-in-law to sign it without securing Kwa's advice.
To counter the arguments, senior counsel Kenneth Tan and Prof Walter Woon, a former attorney-general, said Suet Fern was acting out of affection and concern in performing the administrative role for her father-in-law.
They added that “conflict of interest” was not valid as Kuan Yew was "a brilliant lawyer" and fully aware of what he wanted, and had consented to Suet Fern handling the will for him.
After the judgment was passed, Suet Fern released a statement saying she disapproved of the decision and that there was no basis for the case to be initiated.
“This was a private will. 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. If this will was not what Lee Kuan Yew wanted, he could easily have made another, as he had done several times before. The Court of Three found that ‘he (Lee Kuan Yew) was content with it (this will)’.”
“No complaint had ever been lodged by my father-in-law, Lee Kuan Yew, nor by any of his beneficiaries or his personal lawyer for his various wills, Kwa Kim Li.
“This case arose from a complaint years later by the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Lee Hsien Loong made extensive submissions, but did not present himself as a witness and was not subject to cross-examination.
“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.
“Probate for Lee Kuan Yew’s will had been granted by the courts in 2015. Probate had been sought on the urging of Lee Hsien Loong and Lucien Wong, before he became attorney-general,” she said.
Meanwhile, Singaporeans remain divided over the judgment.
Some have taken to social media to express shock over what they perceived as a "ridiculous outcome" in the case, and rallying citizens to vote for a change in 2025, while others said Suet Fern should not have been involved in matters concerning the will due to her close family relation. – The Vibes, November 20, 2020
.jpg)
