Singapore lawyer referred to disciplinary court for ignoring red flags over mentally frail client’s multimillion-dollar trust

At a meeting at Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, he proposed that BKR establish a trust, and over the following months travelled repeatedly to Hong Kong, where BKR was staying with AUT, to finalise the arrangements.

SEE ALSO

The trust was signed in Hong Kong on Oct 26, 2010. Under its terms, AUT was appointed first protector, with her letters of wishes to carry the same weight as BKR’s own, giving her effective influence over how the trust’s assets were managed.

BKR’s son CBB (who later brought the complaint against Wong) and his elder sister NG, were named as excluded persons who could receive no benefit.

Upon BKR’s death, AUT would become the sole owner of B Ltd, the trust’s principal beneficiary, and was in line to receive a S$10 million gift.

A string of red flags

Within weeks of the trust being signed, BKR began issuing a series of contradictory instructions to her bankers at UBS over the transfer of her assets to DBS.

The unusual activity prompted UBS’ lawyers to write to BKR in late December 2010, expressing concern that her instructions “may not represent (BKR’s) real or independent intentions”. Wong received a full copy of that letter.

The High Court found that Wong had reason to question BKR’s mental capacity well before this point. BKR had told the lawyer that she was “very forgetful” and susceptible to pressure from family members, and Wong had acknowledged during cross-examination that she might have signed documents she did not mean to.

The court also took issue with how Wong handled BKR’s medical assessment. BKR was brought to see two doctors on Oct 25 and 26 – the day before and the very day of the trust signing – with AUT present at both visits.

Wong relied on verbal assurances from both doctors before their written reports were issued, and had not furnished them with material information including the full implications of the trust or BKR’s susceptibility to influence.

He also did not ask for existing medical records, which included earlier neuropsychological assessments from 2005 and 2010 that showed BKR had significant memory impairment and impaired reasoning.

The court further found that Wong had acted for both BKR and AUT simultaneously without disclosing the conflict to either, or advising AUT to seek her own lawyer.

He had also drafted a strongly worded letter – which BKR was asked to copy by hand to make it appear as her own words – demanding that her two other children leave her alone.

Disobeyed orders

The court also found that Wong disobeyed court orders after BKR was formally declared mentally incapacitated.

In December 2012, a senior district judge found BKR unable to make decisions for herself, and appointed her sisters as joint deputies to act on her behalf.

Despite this, Wong continued to advise BKR on her appeal, reviewed the judgment with her, and briefed her on what he called “significant flaws” in the ruling.

He also drafted a new will disinheriting all three of her children, and refused the joint deputies’ requests for his bills and trust documents, saying BKR had not waived legal privilege.

The High Court found these actions to be in clear breach of the court’s orders. The Court of Three Judges will now determine what sanction, if any, to impose on Wong.