Law Society of Singapore v Kwa Kim Li

Law Society of Singapore v Kwa Kim Li (DT 19 of 2022) was a disciplinary proceeding brought before a Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Singapore against Kwa Kim Li, the lawyer who prepared the first six wills of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, following a complaint by his younger children, Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling. In a report dated 5 May 2023, the Tribunal found Kwa guilty of misleading the will's executors and breaching client confidentiality, and ordered her to pay penalties totalling S$13,000 plus costs and disbursements.

Field	Detail
Court	Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Singapore (DT 19 of 2022)
Applicant/Plaintiff	Law Society of Singapore (Second Complaint); Lee Hsien Yang, as complainant with conduct of proceedings (Fourth Complaint)
Respondent/Defendant	Kwa Kim Li, advocate and solicitor of more than 40 years' standing, partner at Lee & Lee
Underlying act/statement	Emails sent to Lee Hsien Loong on 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015 concerning Lee Kuan Yew's prior wills and the drafting of his final will
Charge/Cause of action	Breach of client confidentiality (disclosure of prior wills and correspondence to a non-executor) and misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor (misleading the executors), both under s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966
Key dates	Complaint by Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling: 9 September 2019; Court of Appeal narrowed referral to Second and Fourth Complaints; Disciplinary Tribunal (DT 19 of 2022) appointed; DT report: 5 May 2023
Citation	Law Society of Singapore v Kwa Kim Li, DT 19 of 2022 (Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal, 5 May 2023)
Outcome	Guilty on both charges; penalty of S$8,000 (confidentiality breach: costs $12,000, disbursements $9,182.29) and S$5,000 (misleading executors: costs $5,000) — S$13,000 in penalties total, plus costs and disbursements
Related proceedings	Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) [2020] SGHC 255

Background

Kwa Kim Li, a partner at Lee & Lee and the niece of Lee Kuan Yew's wife, acted as his solicitor for many years, preparing six successive wills between 20 August 2011 and 2 November 2012. She was not, however, the lawyer who drafted or witnessed the seventh and final will Lee Kuan Yew executed on 16–17 December 2013, a role instead associated with Lee Suet Fern — a matter separately litigated in Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern.

The question of who instructed the changes reflected in the final will became publicly contested in 2017, when Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling issued public statements about their brother Lee Hsien Loong's handling of the will and the fate of 38 Oxley Road. Lee Hsien Yang stated that a paragraph in the final will had been drafted at Lee Kuan Yew's direction and "put into language" by Lee Suet Fern, before Kwa inserted it into the will.

This account conflicted with Lee Hsien Loong's earlier statutory declaration to a ministerial committee, in which he said Lee Suet Fern had stated that Lee Kuan Yew asked her to prepare the will. When asked by CNA in 2017 whether she had prepared the last will, Kwa said she had not.

Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling filed a complaint against Kwa on 9 September 2019, comprising four heads: (1) that Kwa failed to follow Lee Kuan Yew's instructions to destroy his superseded wills; (2) that she breached privilege and confidentiality by emailing records of her communications with Lee Kuan Yew to Lee Hsien Loong, who was not an executor of the estate; (3) that she failed to keep proper contemporaneous notes of her instructions from Lee Kuan Yew; and (4) that she gave false and misleading information to the executors in emails dated 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015.

Proceedings

The Law Society's Council initially referred only the second head of complaint (confidentiality) for formal Disciplinary Tribunal investigation. Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling applied to the High Court under section 96 of the Legal Profession Act to compel referral of the remaining heads; the High Court ordered the first and fourth heads referred as well, but on the Law Society's appeal, the Court of Appeal held there was no prima facie case on the first head (destruction of superseded wills) and excluded it. Lee Hsien Yang retained conduct of the proceedings on the fourth head (misleading the executors); the Law Society retained conduct of the second head (confidentiality).

Confidentiality charge

The Tribunal found that in emails to Lee Hsien Loong dated 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015, Kwa disclosed to him — despite his not being an executor — copies of five of Lee Kuan Yew's earlier wills and email correspondence with Lee Kuan Yew from December 2011 to November 2012, along with her explanations for why Lee Kuan Yew had changed his earlier wills.

Kwa argued the disclosure was of the "lowest level" of severity and that she believed Lee Kuan Yew would have wanted his children informed, but accepted in an agreed statement of facts that she had no specific instruction from him, prior to his death, to share the information with Lee Hsien Loong.

Misleading-the-executors charge

The Tribunal examined Kwa's communications with Lee Kuan Yew in the weeks before the final will was executed. It found that on 29 November 2013, Lee Kuan Yew had raised with Kwa his concern that the Oxley Road property might be "de-gazetted" and his wish that any resulting increase in value be shared among all three children rather than retained solely by Lee Hsien Loong; that in the following weeks, Lee Kuan Yew told Kwa he now wished to give all three children equal shares; that on 12 December 2013, Kwa emailed saying she would prepare a codicil to reflect this; and that on 13 December 2013, Lee Kuan Yew separately emailed her requesting a bequest of two carpets to Lee Hsien Yang.

The Tribunal found that Kwa's June 2015 letter to the executors — which stated that Lee Kuan Yew had never instructed her to change his 2 November 2012 will — omitted this November–December 2013 correspondence and was accordingly false and misleading, though the Tribunal did not find beyond reasonable doubt that Kwa had acted knowingly or intentionally in making the false statement. It nonetheless held that she had failed to exercise due care and diligence, amounting to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.

Outcome

In its 5 May 2023 report, the Tribunal found Kwa guilty on both charges. For the confidentiality breach, it imposed a penalty of S$8,000, plus the Law Society's costs of S$12,000 and disbursements of S$9,182.29.

For misleading the executors, it imposed a penalty of S$5,000 and ordered Kwa to pay the complainant's (Lee Hsien Yang's) costs of S$5,000 and bear all disbursements — against a costs claim that had sought as much as S$60,000. In total, Kwa's penalties across both charges came to S$13,000.

References

Template:Reflist