Study on Law Case Use Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion (“IRAC”), Legal Profession Act(“LPA”), Professional Conduct Rules Consider the lawyer D, Lawyer P, Lawyer C, Singapore

Assignment Details:

Please use Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion (“IRAC”) to complete the assignment questions 1 and 2.

The following law and rules are applicable to the cases.

1. Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”)
2. Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) (“PCR”)
3. Pinsler SC, J, Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 – A Commentary (Law Practice Series) (Singapore: Academy Publishing, Singapore Academy of Law, 2016)

Question 1

At about 6:45 pm, on a Thursday evening, a colleague in your firm, Lawyer D, approached you for some urgent advice regarding a contested hearing and an opponent lawyer. The hearing is tomorrow morning.

The following is a brief description of what Lawyer D told you:

Lawyer D is counsel for the Defendant, and the opponent lawyer is Lawyer P, counsel for the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff had instructed Lawyer P to issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendant for a claim in the sum of $100,000 is the price of goods sold and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

Upon the close of pleadings, Lawyer P filed an application for summary judgment of the claim [a hearing, by way of affidavits only, to determine and dispose of straight-forward cases quickly].

Lawyer D had previously requested from Lawyer P for an extension of time on 2 occasions – once for an extra 2 weeks to file the Defence, and another for an extra 2 weeks to file the Defendant’s response Affidavit. On both occasions, Lawyer P had accorded to Lawyer D the due courtesy and indulgence by consenting to the said requests for an extension of time.

Once all the Affidavits from the parties were filed, the court fixed a hearing date to hear the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the Defendant. The hearing was fixed for Friday, 10 November 2017, 9:30 am, in Chambers H.

After the hearing date had been fixed, Lawyer D then sent a text message to Lawyer P, requesting that the hearing date be re-fixed to another date. The reason being that

Lawyer D had a clash of hearing dates, and he was only able to attend the hearing for the Plaintiff’s application some 2 weeks later. In the end, although rather annoyed by now, Lawyer P afforded Lawyer D this further indulgence, but subject to the court’s approval and availability of dates.

Fortunately for Lawyer D, the hearing date was re-fixed by the court to Friday, 24 November 2017 (i.e. tomorrow), 9:30 am, in Chambers H.

Pursuant to the State Courts Practice Directions, counsel for parties is to file and exchange Written Submissions no later than 3 working days prior to the hearing date of contested matters.

3 days ago, on Monday, 20 November 2017, Lawyer P initiated a telephone call to Lawyer D to ask if he was ready to exchange Written Submissions. Lawyer D told Lawyer P that his Written Submissions were not ready, and he would only exchange the same on the hearing date itself.

Today, at about 6:30 pm, Lawyer P sends Lawyer D a text message saying, “I have just been involved in a road accident. I am in the hospital. With apologies to the court, and to you and your client, please apply, on my behalf, for a 2-week adjournment tomorrow morning. Sorry. Can’t talk. I am going into surgery.”

Advice Lawyer D on matters concerning the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and the rules of professional courtesy and etiquette.