Cases

LEGAL PROFESSION

Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa & Ors [2002] 2 SLR 493

High Court - Originating Summons No 939 of 1991 (Summons-in-Chambers No 600537 of 2002)
Choo Han Teck JC
11, 12, 19, 23 April 2002

Discharge - Application for leave to be discharged from acting as solicitors - Application following assertions by another solicitor of conflict of interest - Whether solicitors could take neutral position as to whether they should continue to act as solicitors - Role of court

Plaintiff in person.
Kannan Ramesh and Christina Choo (Tan Kok Quan Partnership) for the first defendant and third party.
Arul Chandran and Ooi Oon Tat (C Arul & Partners) for the second defendant.
Devinder K Rai (Acies Law Corp) for the third and fourth defendants.

This was an application by Tan Kok Quan Partnership to be discharged from acting as solicitors for the first defendant. The application followed a letter from the solicitor for the second defendant taking the view that as Tan Kok Quan, SC, the principal partner in Tan Kok Quan Partnership, was a partner in another firm which had acted for the first defendant's late husband's estate, consequently the firm may be in breach of rr 29 and 31 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Ed) if it continued to act for the first defendant in the current proceedings. At the resumed hearing, the applicant submitted that although he disputed the allegations of conflict of interests, his firm could not, in the meantime, continue to act without a resolution of the allegations.

Held, allowing the application:
A solicitor is entitled to caution his counterpart when he believes that a conflict of interest situation looms in the distance. Whether or not the solicitor concerned agrees with that perception, he must decide whether he is comfortable in continuing so to act. If he decides to continue acting for the client he must be prepared to justify his conduct if necessary. The question as to whether he is right or not may only be determined after a full inquiry; but the court, at this juncture, is not the proper forum to conduct such an inquiry. Following the applicant firm's statement that the firm could not continue to act without a resolution of the allegations, the application was allowed.