SOLICITOR Oscar Lai Ka-to, who was sentenced to seven years' jail for bribing corrupt government lawyer Warwick Reid, had four of his convictions quashed yesterday because of a High Court judge's ''seriously flawed'' directions to the jury. The Court of Appeal said the failure of trial judge Mr Justice Saied to direct the jury on hearsay and corroborated evidence was both serious and material. However, Lai, 59, was unable to walk free, since the court rejected his appeal against a fifth offence. But his co-appellant, businessman Lee Hoi-kwong, 52, was released after the court quashed his conviction on a single bribery charge and set aside his seven-year jail sentence. Lai's appeal against his sentence will be heard today. The Crown's cross-appeal seeking to increase the seven-year penalty of barrister Eddie Soh Chee-kong, who was convicted of seven corruption offences, will be heard next Wednesday. Lai had been convicted of five charges: Lai and Soh, 52, were alleged to have offered Reid an advantage in 1986 in return for his sending a letter saying Alan Chuang would not be prosecuted; Lai and Soh were alleged to have offered Reid $1 million in exchange for information on the investigation into the Wing On group of companies; Lai and Soh were alleged to have offered Reid $350,000 in 1989 in return for information in connection with Lawrence Chu Cho-ham's appeal against conviction; Lai and Soh were found guilty of offering Reid a share of the unspent part of the legal fees of the former chairman of the Stock Exchange, Ronald Li Fook-shiu, in return for information in relation to the prosecution of Li in 1989; Lai, Soh and Lee were convicted also of offering Reid $4 million in 1986 to support a submission to the Attorney-General that one of the two fraud charges against Lee should be dropped. The three men were convicted in June 1992 after a 41/2-month trial. Lai's counsel, Richard Ferguson QC, said yesterday that the judge's summing up to the jury had been confusing and unbalanced. He said Reid had been such a tainted witness that his evidence should have been excluded at the outset and that Mr Justice Saied had erred in not holding an inquiry into the allegations made by him. Delivering the court's reserved judgment, Mr Justice Power said no valid criticism could be laid against the trial judge for not having held an inquiry into the allegations made by Reid, and his decision not to stay the case for abuse of process had been a correct one. However, he said, the jury ought to have been directed on hearsay and corroborated evidence and the omission amounted to serious misdirection.