Lawyers face penalty for acting for opposing clients
HE represented wife-killer Anthony Ler's accomplice six years ago.
Now, lawyer Edwin Seah is in trouble. The Law Society is taking him and his law firm partner, Mr Danny Teo, to task for breaching the Legal Profession Act. Both are in their late 30s.
They will face a Court of Three Judges on Tuesday. This is the highest level disciplinary hearing for a lawyer.
The two pleaded guilty to one charge relating to a conflict of interest while acting for two clients.
They also admitted to another charge of allowing someone who is not a lawyer to do legal work in their firm.
It is up to the court to decide on the penalties.
Both lawyers, from Edwin Seah & K S Teo, acted for motorcyclist Alvin Yeo after a collision with another motorcycle on 29 Aug 2003.
Mr Yeo had been referred to the law firm by Southern Motor, from which he had bought his motorcycle.
At the time, the law firm was representing Southern Motor's customers in accident claims.
On 10 Sep in the same year, the law firm wrote to Mr Yeo to confirm it was acting for him in his accident claim.
But five days later, the firm did something strange. It told Mr Yeo's insurer, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, that it was also acting for the other motorcyclist, Mr Nanthakumar Baduil.
The two lawyers realised the conflict of interest after searching through their database of clients.
The law firm then discharged itself from representing Mr Yeo, but continued acting for Mr Baduil.
And on 9 Oct 2003, the law firm served Mr Baduil's suit on Mr Yeo.
This was a conflict of interest as both lawyers were privy to confidential information relating to Mr Yeo's case.
Shocked by the turn of events, Mr Yeo contacted his insurer, who confirmed that the law firm was indeed acting for Mr Baduil.
Mr Yeo felt his case had been prejudiced as he had given his instructions to the law firm through Mr Victor Chew, a representative from Southern Motor, who was at the firm to discuss the workshop's matters and had attended to him when he arrived.
Mr Yeo then lodged a complaint with the Law Society.
It was also against the Legal Profession Act for Mr Chew to take instructions from Mr Yeo as the former was not a lawyer with the firm.
In their mitigation to the Law Society's disciplinary committee, both Mr Seah and Mr Teo said they were relocating their office at the time of the offences.
As their computer systems were being upgraded, they claimed they were unable to check their database of clients.
While both lawyers admitted it was 'regretful' that they did not discharge themselves from acting for Mr Baduil as well, they said Mr Yeo had not provided detailed instructions on the case.
Both lawyers pleaded they were not dishonest, and genuinely believed they were not wrong in continuing to represent Mr Baduil.
Mr Seah and Mr Teo also admitted they were wrong in failing to supervise Mr Chew when he met Mr Yeo in their office.
Mr Teo was called to the Bar in 1994 while Mr Seah began practising in 1996.
Mr Seah is remembered for defending Ler's 15-year-old accomplice in 2001.
On 14 May that year, the boy stabbed Ler's estranged wife to death after being instigated by Ler.
While Ler has been hanged, the boy was sentenced to be detained at the President's pleasure.
Mr Seah was overseas when The New Paper called his law firm. But Mr Teo said they would await the court's decision.
'We've already pleaded guilty so we're just waiting for the court to decide on the outcome,' said Mr Teo.
Both lawyers can be struck off the rolls, suspended from practice or censured.
________________________________________________________________________
Quite a big news? Somewhere somehow. For me, I decided to act blur and not ask the two of them.
Hmmmm…….. Guess they should discharge themselves from this accident case totally instead of representing either one of the parties.
Oh well, what is done is done. Suspended for 8 months by Law Society. By then, they will be back again. As? No idea. A new name I am sure.