Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Lawyers should uphold truth and justice

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Lawyers should uphold truth and justice

There is a letter printed in a newspaper from a blogger who made a honest opinion about the quality of food in a restaurant. She received a letter from a lawyer acting from the restaurant, asking for the blog to be removed or face the threat of legal action for defamation.

Is it proper for the lawyer to make such a threat? Has the lawyer already established that there were grounds for a defamatory action? Does the lawyer have a duty to advice the client on the difference between an honest opinion and a malicious intent?

If the lawyer does not have valid grounds and make such a threat to frighten the blogger, does it constitute "bullying"? Is it legal? Is the legal profession required by their ethics to uphold truth and justice, and avoid the abuse of the legal process?

I shall be asking the views of the Law Society on this matter. I will see if there is grounds for a complaint to be lodged against the lawyer for unethical behavior.

Tan Kin Lian

23 comments:

zhummmeng said...: Like insurance agents the lawyer acted on the 'instruction' of the client. The lawyer didn't advise. The insurance agents also sell what the clients want.It is faster way to make money than to advise , conduct an investigation and need analysis to ensure the service/product is correct.; October 14, 2009 8:47 AM
Singaporean said...: Rich and high influence people like to 'sue' people who gets into their way.....

That's the way of life in Singapore. Just look at our government (PAP) whoever stood in their way, they sue them!!!; October 14, 2009 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Quality of food eg taste, quantity and price are subjective matters. It may also be diffcult to investigate or make fair judgment.

So I think if the blogger use the adjectives like "poor", "lousy", etc without qualification, then there is a case of being defamatory.; October 14, 2009 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes it is a honest opinion
LAWYER should be told to withdrw the legal action; October 14, 2009 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Now it seems every trade is short changing the clients. I thought it was only the insurance agents who short change , mislead and con their clients but also the lawyers and the doctors.
But the insurance agents still stand out of the crowd as being the most unethical salesmen and women.; October 14, 2009 1:03 PM
James said...: If you are willing to pay, lawyers will write any letter you want.; October 14, 2009 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: This is a sad episode. So where do we draw the line? You cannot even express your own view freely..sad sad sad; October 14, 2009 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Stop patronising restaurants. That's my advice. Some food courts also can serve up delectable dishes. Moreever I do not want to pay 10% service charge anymore.; October 14, 2009 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Good on you to out the spotlight on these bullies.; October 14, 2009 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: They are learning from the one and only "wise & great" man in Singapore. Use the law as a sword.; October 14, 2009 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Remember there is a lawyer Leonard Loo who was supposed to represent those investors who lost money in the credit[linked notes. Every investor who joined him must pay $1k upon registration.
It' a fallancy to believe lawyers uphold justice and truth. It's money that is the ethics in the legal profession.; October 14, 2009 4:15 PM
William Ng said...: Seriously, I feel we should stand together and stop all these nonsense.

HT; October 14, 2009 4:15 PM
Vincent Sear said...: Lawyers are paid by their clients to advise their clients and take intruction from the clients. There's nothing to do with upholding law (police job) or upholding justice (judiciary job).

The only restriction is that the lawyer cannot carry out any client instruction that's illegal.

If the lawyer feels that the client is guilty beyond his personal moral standards, he should decline the client. A lawyer representing a client cannot do anything legally unfavorable towards the client. That's a breach of professional ethics. For example, a lawyer saying that his client confessed to him for murder whereas the client pleaded not guilty. That testimony inadmissible as court evidence. The lawyer would probably get disbarred and the case declared a mistrial.

That's to say, the lawyer isn't bound to full disclosure. If he knows any information or evidence that's unfavorable for his client, he can legally and is even professionally required to keep quiet about it. He can refuse to say something, but whatever he choose to say, he cannnot lie.; October 14, 2009 5:37 PM
Vincent Sear said...: Anyway, I think that the restaurant has no case. The owner got distressed and consulted their lawyer, and probably instigated by the legal-fee-hungry to bully as long as there's some odds. The owner decided to take on the odds.

I've said hundreds and perhaps thousands of restaurant foods taste like shit publicly after tasting them. Come sue me then. Cant eat, can pay, cannot complain if it's not good as expected? What law is this? Even N. Korea and Cuba courts would also blur.; October 14, 2009 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Vincent ,
you are right to say that if a lawyer thinks that an instruction has poor chance of winning or is immoral the lawyer must decline and cannot go ahead because of the fees they will recieve from their clients. In other words the lawyer must advise accordingly and not pander or accede to the wants of their clients.
Likewise insurance agents cannot pander to the wants of the clients. But unfortunately, insurance agents sell according to the wants of the clients. If the clients know the products and their wants are their needs it may not too bad . But the problem is clients don't know and yet insurance agents sell products according to the wish of the customers.Only product pushing will do this and the agents tghink that they can get away from it if something goes wrong.Wait till the new law that addresses product selling come into being and this will be the retribution for this type of agents.
For clients who buy or 'sold' or pushed by agents these clients are better off buying direct from the companies. Hope the law will change too to cater to these 'savvy' customers with products that have no load.; October 14, 2009 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be good to publicise which restaurant this is.; October 15, 2009 1:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes, go all the way. Stop those lawyer whose abused the law simply because there know the law and can make money from knowing the law.; October 15, 2009 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: It is not unusual to hear defence by insurance agents like the following..

1.The client wants it waht and not i want" (the truth is it is the agent who wants it)
2. 'the client selected one and not i selected, hor"....(the toilet cleaner woman is very savvy and knows about life insurance or ILP funds)
3.The client doesn't want fact finding, too long winded and don't want to disclose; the client thinks $15K critical illness cover is enough .....the truth is the cleaner woman doesn't know or asked to.It is the agent who avoids the fact find because he or she might not be able to sell the $15K critical illness after the analysis.Better sell first ...
MAS must eliminate these agents for they are bane to consumers.They don't add value but steal from consumers.

The Watchman; October 15, 2009 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Lately we have been hearing about doctors being hauled up for malpractice and misconduct by the Singapore medical Council but we have NEVER heard of insurance agents being fined , disciplined, censured or license revoked by MAS. Does this mean the insurance agents are well behave? Of course not, everyone knows they are forever breaking the laws blatantly and rampantly.MAS knows it too but why it is not doing anyhting is puzzling.It is because it is of pendemic scale that one agent kenna all the rest also kenna.
Then MAS should act swiftly to curb and nip it in the bud...But, alas, MAS has its head buried in the sand.; October 15, 2009 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: That Obolo cakeshop at Joo Chiat Rd has withdrew their threst to sue the blogger Ms Ong about her negative comments about their dessets.; October 15, 2009 1:08 PM
Vincent Sear said...: We must note that justice isn't perfect. Some laws or verdicts that we consider unjust are still legal. That's the lawyer's job. In the best interest of the client, as long as it's legal. Morality? Leave it to the church or mosque or temple. Enforcement? Leave that to the police. Justice? Leave that to the court. Act in the best interest of the client within the law, regardless of guilty or innocent, that's the lawyer's job.

Who makes the laws? That's the Parliament's job. Who becomes Members of Parliament, that's the citizens job to decide.; October 15, 2009 2:03 PM
Vincent Sear said...: While we're discussing lawyers and bad foods here, some have drifted into connecting these issues with insurance agents. Well, might as well. At law, insurance agents are agents of the companies, representing the companies to the clients, prospecting for business. The agents sign contracts with and receive commissions from the companies, not the clients.

Therefore, a client can sue the company for any agent malpractice in favour of the company (and/or him/herself), whereas the company can't sue the client for any agent malpractice in favour of the client (and/or him/self), except for breach of contract and criminal offence (police case).

Insurance companies have long ago tried to circumvent this by calling their forms application forms or proposal forms, implying that it's the client making the application/proposal for insurance through "their" agent. Many other industries like banking, property etc. use the same term for the same purpose of turning the table around after the sales process of prospecting for business. Instead of I'm trying sell something to you, once you're convinced, it becomes you trying to buy something from me. You apply or propose to buy or borrow from me, not I ask to sell or lend to you.

However, all these semantics cut no ice with the basic principles of agency law and contract law. The agent is still deemed to represent the company at law and the company has to bear responsibility for any misconduct. For example, if an agent collected premium from a client and ran away with it withouth paying the company, the client is deemed to have paid. Of course, the client must insist on receipt upon payment as proof. Otherwise, if the agent really runs away, you go argue without evidence and have to blame your own carelessness.; October 15, 2009 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: CASE has ever warned insurance agents about committing misconduct and that the crime has no time bar. In other words, even the agents have left the industry they are still liable for the crime. I have heard of agents saying that the law cannot touch once they are out of the industry. Many committed malpractices and hope time will erase their crimes. Even they die their estate is also affected.
So, insurance agents, if you are thinking of committing crime against your clients and get away scott free you better think thrice because the law can 'exhume' your coffin.
, you; October 15, 2009 7:48 PM