Lee Hsien Yang emphasises that the High Court found Kwa Kim Li’s emails could be “prima facie false and misleading”

Singapore -- Mr Lee Hsien Yang posted on Facebook the most comprehensive account of the High Court judgment following his and his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling's complaint against lawyer Kwa Kim Li's handling of their father, the late Lee Kuan Yew's will. On Facebook on Thursday (April 22), he posted a link to the entire 47-page judgment issued by Justice Valerie Thean on Wednesday (April 21). The High Court granted an order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary tribunal (DT) for a formal investigation into Ms Kwa’s conduct. This was the order sought by Mr Lee and Dr Lee, the executors of their father's estate, who went to the High Court, dissatisfied with the Council of the Law Society's earlier decision regarding their complaint. In a novel twist, Mr Lee also gave a short, graphic account of the proceedings. On Facebook on Wednesday, he posted a flow chart that showed what happened after they complained to the Law Society against the lawyer on September 5, 2019, and the difference between the recommendation made by the Law Society inquiry committee and the High Court judgment. In his flow chart posted on Wednesday, he outlined the various stages of the case: “Stage 1: The two Lee siblings made four complaints against Kwa Kim Li on 5 Sep 2019 Stage 2: Inquiry Committee (IC) recommended two complaints (C1 and C2) for DT (disciplinary tribunal) Stage 3: Following Law Society’s enquiry, IC recommended only one (C2) for DT Stage 4: Justice Thean ruled on two complaints (Complaints 1 and 4) for DT” The four complaints against Ms Kwa by Mr Lee and Dr Lee, as stated in the flow chart, were:

1. She had failed to follow the late Lee's instructions to destroy his superseded wills
2. She had breached privilege and her duties of confidentiality by sending emails of records of communication with the late Lee to PM Lee
3. She had failed to keep contemporaneous notes and records of all the advice given and instructions received from the late Lee
4. She had given false and misleading information to the executors in her 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015 emails.

The inquiry committee recommended a disciplinary tribunal be formed to go into only the second complaint, that she had breached privilege and her duties of confidentiality. The High Court, on the other hand, recommended a disciplinary tribunal be formed also to investigate the complaints that:

• She had failed to follow the late Lee's instructions to destroy his superseded wills
• She had given false and misleading information to the executors in her 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015 emails.

Mr Lee and Dr Lee applied to the High Court after the Council of the Law Society wrote to them on September 7, 2020, that it would apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a disciplinary tribunal to hear only for one of their four complaints. They wanted their three other complaints investigated as well. Now the High Court has given the go-ahead for an investigation into two of those three complaints. In his post on Thursday (April 22), Mr Lee quoted an extract from the High Court judgment which ended with the words," I agree that the statements in Ms Kwa’s 4 June 2015 Email and 22 June 2015 Email, as a factual matter, could be said to be prima facie false and misleading.” "   Under the Legal Profession Act, all advocates and solicitors proven guilty of any breaches that amount to improper conduct or practice can be struck off the roll, censured or made to pay monetary penalties. The full judgement can be found here. /TISG