The unjust suspension of senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern from follow has left a “stain on the worldwide popularity of Singapore”, mentioned former London lord mayor Sir David Thomas Rowell Lewis.
In a letter titled “What I know about Singapore’s Lee Suet Fern”, printed by South China Morning Put up (SCMP) on Monday (30 November), Sir Lewis mentioned that he has been “very disturbed” to learn concerning the Singapore Legislation Society’s failed try and disbar Mrs Lee in relation to her involvement in dealing with the final will of the city-state’s founding prime minister and her father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew.
Sir Lewis, who can also be the previous president of Metropolis of London Legislation Society, mentioned that he had recognized Mrs Lee for 4 a long time and described her as “a senior lawyer of undisputed capacity, ethics and expertise, and a associate in a significant US international legislation agency”.
He additionally talked about that Mr LKY had spoken to him of his belief in and admiration of Mrs Lee throughout a lunch he hosted for Mr LKY in 2008 in London.
“Who will imagine that he would have had any objection to his daughter-in-law serving to to rearrange for the witnessing of his will, which she didn’t draft, or that she acted in any method improperly?
“For my part, she has been unjustly suspended, a stain on the worldwide popularity of Singapore,” he remarked.
Sir Lewis additionally identified that the assertion that Mr LKY would have signed something towards his needs “is fantasy”, as Mr LKY himself was additionally a lawyer.
“We might be delighted to welcome her again to practise in London the place she was educated following her double first at Cambridge [University],” Sir Lewis concluded.
Background of Lee Suet Fern’s suspension
Sir David Lewis’s letter got here within the wake of the Court docket of Three Judges (COTJ) on 20 November ordered the suspension of Mrs Lee from legal practice for 15 months following the alleged battle of curiosity current in her involvement with Mr LKY’s final will on 17 December 2013.
Attorneys for the Legislation Society of Singapore earlier argued for the disbarment of Mrs Lee over her involvement within the preparation and execution of Mr LKY’s closing will regardless of realizing that her husband Lee Hsien Yang stood to profit from it.
The fees of misconduct have been introduced towards Mrs Lee by the Singapore’s Legislation Society, following a grievance filed by the Lawyer-Basic’s Chambers (AGC) to the Society on 4 December 2018.
As mandated by legislation, the Chief Justice appointed a disciplinary tribunal (DT) to listen to the fees towards Mrs Lee.
The DT carried out a five-day listening to from 1 to five July this yr and subsequently discovered Mrs Lee responsible of the fees made towards her.
The tribunal said in a report launched on 21 February that Mrs Lee and her husband Mr LHY—the youngest son of the late Mr LKY and one of many executors of his late father’s will—had inspired Mr LKY to revoke the sixth will within the absence of LKY’s lawyer Kwa Kim Li.
Mrs Lee and Mr LHY had reportedly organized the revocation of the sixth will with Mr LKY and the execution of a brand new will — which was to be Mr LKY’s final will — regardless of Mr LKY’s settlement to execute a codicil to the sixth will.
Given the DT’s findings towards Mrs Lee, the COTJ handed down a 15-month suspension to Mrs Lee.
In a statement to the media, Mrs Lee mentioned that she disagrees with the COTJ resolution, noting that there was no foundation for the case to have even been initiated as this was a personal will.
“The Court docket of Three discovered that ‘he [Lee Kuan Yew] was content material with it [this will]. No grievance had ever been lodged by my father-in-law, Lee Kuan Yew, nor by any of his beneficiaries or his private lawyer for his numerous wills, Kwa Kim Li,” she mentioned.
She added, “The Court docket of Three discovered ‘no solicitor-client relationship existed’ between Lee Kuan Yew and myself. The Court docket discovered there was no dishonesty in my dealings with Lee Kuan Yew and there was no discovering that the need was procured by fraud or undue affect.”
The choice by the COTJ can’t be appealed.