SGHC Upholds Disciplinary Tribunal’s Findings Against Lawyer for Improper Communications with Rep.Wit

The Singapore High Court’s August 2025 decision in Rai Vijay Kumar v Law Society of Singapore [2025] SGHC 159 is an important judgment clarifying the limits of a lawyer’s communications with witnesses represented by other counsel, and the nature of misleading conduct under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

What's The Matter?

This case arose when Mr. Rai, an advocate, challenged disciplinary findings against him for

(1) sending letters directly to witnesses already represented by other lawyers, and

(2) making misleading statements in those letters regarding their legal obligations.

What Court Said?

The High Court, per Jeyaretnam J, methodically addressed not just the substance of the charges but also the broader principles of professional conduct underpinning Singapore’s legal ethics regime.

First, the Court confirmed that a lawyer’s duty to act in the best interests of their client is always subject to a paramount duty to the Court and to the administration of justice. In complex civil litigation such as medical negligence claims lawyers for plaintiffs might legitimately wish to contact doctors or professionals involved in the facts, but where such potential witnesses are already legally represented, direct contact is tightly circumscribed. Rule 7(3) of the Professional Conduct Rules forbids direct communications with represented persons except in narrow circumstances, such as with prior consent or legal/court authority.

The judgment recounted how Mr. Rai’s law firm sent a series of letters to seven doctors, all or most represented by their own counsel.

The letters, bearing his e-signature and contact details, explained that the doctors’ statements were being sought for the preparation of affidavits, and included language warning of “possible cost consequences” and urging them not to discuss their evidence with anyone not even their own lawyers on pain of “severe penal consequences.”

The High Court rejected arguments that Mr. Rai was not personally responsible because the letters were sent by his associate. The evidence showed clear endorsement, and legal responsibility cannot simply be delegated or evaded by internal office practices.

Similarly, the Court found no error in the disciplinary tribunal’s conclusion that Mr. Rai knew the witnesses were legally represented and that the rules applied in full.

On “authority or just cause,” the Court held there was none here: having a subpoena or a pending court order limiting evidence may necessitate contacting a witness, but does not exempt a lawyer from observing conduct rules or from the prohibition on direct contact with represented persons without proper channels.

Perhaps most instructive was the finding on misleading conduct.

The High Court ruled that Mr. Rai’s letters misrepresented the true state of the law there is no legal requirement that an affidavit be provided ahead of oral evidence, nor are adverse costs or penal consequences generally imposed simply for declining to make a pre-trial statement.

More egregious was the warning against consulting one’s own attorney: in fact, witnesses are generally entitled and even encouraged to seek independent legal advice.

These misrepresentations amounted to taking unfair advantage of the recipients and acting contrary to the ideals of an “honourable profession.”

On procedural power, the Court made clear that, under Section 97 of the Legal Profession Act, its role in hearing reviews of disciplinary tribunal findings is strictly limited.

The High Court can only remit the matter for rehearing or direct further investigation, but cannot itself acquit, reduce penalties, or substitute alternative outcomes a point underscored in the statutory interpretation analysis.

This judgment is a reminder to all practitioners: strict compliance with professional conduct rules is required, especially when dealing with witnesses represented by counsel. Misleading letters or attempts to isolate witnesses from their own legal advisors are grave breaches that threaten not just reputation, but the functional integrity of the legal process.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for specific guidance on their individual circumstances.

Refrences:

Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

S5(2) Honesty, competence and diligence

5.—(1) The following principles guide the interpretation of this rule.

Principles

(a) The relationship between a legal practitioner and his or her client imports a duty to be honest in all dealings with the client.

(b) A legal practitioner must have the requisite knowledge, skill and experience to provide competent advice and representation to his or her client.

(c) A legal practitioner has a duty to be diligent in the advice and information given to his or her client, and in the manner the legal practitioner represents the client.

(2) A legal practitioner must —

(a) be honest in all the legal practitioner’s dealings with his or her client;

(b) when advising the client, inform the client of all information known to the legal practitioner that may reasonably affect the interests of the client in the matter, other than —

(i) any information that the legal practitioner is precluded, by any overriding duty of confidentiality, from disclosing to the client; and

(ii) any information that the client has agreed in writing need not be disclosed to the client;

(c) act with reasonable diligence and competence in the provision of services to the client;

(d) ensure that the legal practitioner has the relevant knowledge, skills and attributes required for each matter undertaken on behalf of the client, and apply the knowledge, skills and attributes in a manner appropriate to that matter;

(e) keep the client reasonably informed of the progress of the client’s matter;

(f) where practicable, promptly respond to the client’s communications;

(g) keep appointments with the client;

(h) provide timely advice to the client;

(i) follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions that the client is competent to give;

(j) use all legal means to advance the client’s interests, to the extent that the legal practitioner may reasonably be expected to do so; and

(k) keep proper contemporaneous records of all instructions received from, and all advice rendered to, the client.

(3) The circumstances, nature and terms of engagement of a legal practitioner by his or her client are to be taken into account when considering whether the legal practitioner has complied with paragraph (2).

(4) A legal practitioner must, as far as reasonably possible, continue to act for his or her client in the client’s best interests, after the client’s ability to make any decision is impaired because of any mental disability or for any other reason.

(5) When a legal practitioner is given instructions purportedly on behalf of his or her client, the legal practitioner must —

(a) ensure that the person giving those instructions has the authority to give those instructions on behalf of the client; or

(b) if there is no evidence of such authority, obtain the client’s confirmation of those instructions within a reasonable time after receiving those instructions.

Legal Profession Act 1966

S.97.Application for review of Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision—(1) Where a Disciplinary Tribunal has made a determination under section 93(1)(a) or (b), the person who made the complaint, the regulated legal practitioner or the Council may, within 14 days of being notified of that determination or any order under section 93(2) or

(2A), apply to a Judge for a review of that determination or order.

[40/2014]

(2) An application under subsection (1) must be —

(a) made by originating application; and

[Act 25 of 2021 wef 01/04/2022]

(b) served on —

(i) the person who made the complaint, if the person had the conduct of the proceedings before the

Disciplinary Tribunal and is not the applicant;

(ii) the regulated legal practitioner, if he or she is not the applicant;

(iii) the Society, if the Council is not the applicant; and

(iv) the secretary of the Disciplinary Tribunal.

[40/2014]

(3) Upon receiving the application, the secretary of the Disciplinary Tribunal must file in court the record and report of the hearing and investigation by the Disciplinary Tribunal.

(4) The Judge hearing the application —

(a) has full power to determine any question necessary to be determined for the purpose of doing justice in the case, including any question as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the determination or order of the Disciplinary Tribunal, or as to the regularity of any proceedings of the Disciplinary Tribunal; and

(b) may make such orders as the Judge thinks fit, including —

(i) an order directing the person who made the complaint or the Council to make an application under section 98;

(ii) an order setting aside the determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal and directing —

(A) the Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear and reinvestigate the complaint or matter; or

(B) the Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of another Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint or matter; or

(iii) such order for the payment of costs as may be just.

(5) If the Judge makes an order directing the person who made the complaint to make an application under section 98, that person has the conduct of the proceedings under that section, and any such proceedings must be brought in the person’s name.

(6) If the Judge makes an order directing the person who made the complaint or the Council to make an application under section 98, that person or the Society (as the case may be) must make the application under that section within one month from the date of the order.

Remedial measures

97A. For the purposes of this Part, the Council may, with the approval of the Minister, make rules to prescribe —

(a) the remedial measures to address any issue concerning the professional practice, etiquette, conduct or discipline of a regulated legal practitioner; and

(b) any requirements that the Council may specify for compliance with an order of the Council under section 88(1A) or 94(3A).