Lim Tean gets longer jail term for practising law without a valid certificate after appeal dismissed

In delivering his decision on Monday, Judge Ramesh said he found no errors in the State Courts’ determination that Lim did not have a practising certificate in force during this period.

Lim also failed to establish the defence of reasonable care, the judge said, noting that he had elected to remain silent and provided no evidence on this issue.

Judge Ramesh said there were errors in Lim’s sentencing, noting that the district judge incorrectly found his culpability to be low. He agreed that Lim’s initial sentence was “manifestly inadequate”.

Lim sought to defer his sentence by two months, instructing his lawyers that he is considering his options to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

His lawyer, Mohamed Arshad of Fernandez LLC, noted that Lim was still a practising lawyer and working on documents for an Apr 22 hearing.

In response, the prosecution noted that Lim had no right of appeal against Judge Ramesh’s decision, but did not object to the deferment since they did not want to “unduly compromise” Lim’s clients.

PRACTISING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE

Lim was convicted in July 2024 by Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun after a trial.

He was found guilty of three charges under the Legal Profession Act for acting as an advocate and solicitor without authorisation between Apr 1, 2021, and Jun 9, 2021.

Lim’s practising certificate was only issued on Jun 10, 2021.

Lim’s lawyer Patrick Fernandez had argued that the practising certificate stated that Lim had been “authorised to practise as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore during the practice year terminating on Mar 31, 2022”.

This practice year, which was from Apr 1, 2021, to Mar 31, 2022, would have captured the period when Lim was accused of acting as a lawyer without authorisation, the defence argued.

The defence argued that Lim did not intend to commit the offences, and that he had exercised reasonable care.

Mr Fernandez said Lim made it clear to the Law Society that he did not have a practising certificate and asked if he could still go to court. He was told that he could, but that he had to inform the judge.

Lim said that he had informed the judges of this matter during court proceedings, but that the exchange was not captured in transcripts.

However, Judge Ong ruled that there was no ambiguity in the relevant section of the Legal Profession Act, and that Lim had failed to show how he could have been mistaken in his interpretations.

At the time, Mr Ng and Mr Wong, as well as Deputy Public Prosecutor Edwin Soh sought between five and eight months’ jail for Lim. 

They argued that the court’s sentence should reflect the need to protect the public from unauthorised people claiming to provide legal services, and signal disapproval of Lim’s “glaring lack of remorse”.

Defence lawyer Mr Fernandez asked for a total fine of S$4,500, arguing that the scale of Lim’s actions did not meet the threshold for imprisonment.

When Lim was first sentenced, the judge agreed with the prosecution that Lim had not shown any remorse and exposed his clients to the risk of having no recourse to professional liability insurance.

“He had in the process deceived his clients, other lawyers, public officers and the judges,” said Judge Ong at the time.

Having been a lawyer for many years, Lim should have known that when his practising certificate expired on Mar 31, 2021, he had up to the end of April to renew it, failing which he would be deemed to be practising as an unauthorised person, he added.

For acting as a lawyer without a valid practising certificate under the Legal Profession Act, Lim could have been jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$25,000, or both.