Lawyer who sent misleading letters to 22 doctors fails in bid to quash $18,000 penalty
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 14 Aug 2025
Author: Selina Lum
The court said Mr V. K. Rai had breached professional conduct rules because he took unfair advantage of the recipients by misleading them about their own legal position.
A lawyer who sent misleading letters to 22 doctors to pressure them to give statements to his law firm has failed in his High Court bid to quash the $18,000 penalty that was imposed on him.
In a written judgment on Aug 12, Justice Philip Jeyaretnam upheld the penalty handed down earlier by a disciplinary tribunal.
The judge said Mr V. K. Rai had breached professional conduct rules because he took unfair advantage of the letter recipients by misleading them about their own legal position.
In May 2022, Mr Rai, of Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, was acting for a client in a medical negligence suit when he sent out identical letters to 22 doctors from Singapore General Hospital, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. These doctors were not sued but were potential witnesses.
The wording of the letters created a misleading impression that the doctors were legally obliged to give a statement to Arbiters.
The letters stated the law firm was “required by the High Court” to record a statement from the doctors for the purpose of preparing an affidavit.
The doctors were told not to discuss their testimony with anyone, including their legal advisers and insurers. The letters also warned of “severe penal consequences” if the doctors did not comply.
In November 2022, the chairmen of the medical board of each hospital filed complaints to the Law Society of Singapore against Mr Rai.
The Law Society brought two charges against him, one for taking advantage of potential witnesses by making misleading statements and one for communicating directly with seven of the doctors when he knew they were represented by other lawyers.
Under etiquette rules, lawyers are not supposed to deal directly with the client of another lawyer behind his back.
A hearing before a two-member disciplinary tribunal began on May 30, 2024.
On Aug 21, 2024, after one of the members recused himself, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon appointed Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Mr Chan Hock Keng to continue hearing the matter.
Mr Rai chose to remain silent when called to take the stand but made oral arguments as his own counsel. The Law Society, represented by Mr Pradeep Pillai and Mr Rashpal Singh, argued the tribunal must draw an adverse inference against Mr Rai due to his failure to give evidence.
In its report dated Jan 9, the tribunal agreed, saying Mr Rai would not have been able to substantiate his claims if he had testified.
The tribunal found that the Law Society had proved both charges, and concluded that a penalty of $18,000 was appropriate.
Mr Rai then applied to the High Court for a review of the tribunal’s decision.
He argued the tribunal’s finding was invalid because the Law Society never proved that the individual complainants had the authority to make the complaints on behalf of the hospitals.
Justice Jeyaretnam said this argument has no merit because the validity of the tribunal’s determination does not depend on who made the complaint or why they did so.
Mr Rai also argued he had not “communicated directly” with the doctors because the letters were not sent by him but by his associate, Mr Joavan Pereira.
The judge rejected this argument. The context of the etiquette rule indicates that “directly” referred to communicating with a represented party without going through their lawyer, he said.
Justice Jeyaretnam said evidence was presented that Mr Rai knew and approved of the letters; this was not rebutted as he chose not to testify. The judge added that Mr Rai was copied on the e-mails sent by Mr Pereira.
Mr Rai also argued that his client required the doctors to testify in court, and thus his firm was “required by the High Court” to record the doctors’ statements.
This simply was not true, said Justice Jeyaretnam.
A law firm which obtains a subpoena is not required by law or by the court to obtain a statement from the witness, the judge noted.
It is always possible for a witness under subpoena to give oral testimony without providing an affidavit, he added.
The judge noted that this misstatement was compounded by the further misstatement that not giving a statement could lead to “possible cost consequences”.
There is no precedent for an adverse costs order against a witness under subpoena who chooses to give evidence orally, he said.
“These misstatements appeared calculated to put pressure on the recipients to have their statements recorded by Mr Rai and his firm,” said the judge.
The medical negligence suit has been settled out of court.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1500