Lim Tean fined $30,000 over client money handling

On Nov 26 and Nov 27 in 2019, Lim filed two notices to reflect that his law firm had replaced Joseph Chen & Co as Mr Suresh’s lawyers.

Mr Suresh has stated that this was done without his knowledge, authority or consent.

Lim contended that at a meeting on Nov 15, 2019, Mr Suresh had authorised him to bank the cheque.

He said that at a later meeting on Nov 26 that year, he paid $5,000 to Mr Suresh and $22,200 to Mr Tarmmar Razu Doriasamy, a friend of Mr Suresh’s, in cash.

Lim presented to the disciplinary tribunal acknowledgement notes purportedly signed by each man.

In its judgment, the court pointed out that the Law Society did not challenge the authenticity or admissibility of the acknowledgement forms.

The society also did not contest Lim’s contention that the Nov 26 meeting had taken place.

The court said that if Lim’s account of the later meeting was not challenged, this would inevitably have an impact on the finding to be made in relation to the alleged earlier meeting.

The tribunal had found that the Nov 15 meeting did not take place, but said it was unnecessary to make any findings on the alleged Nov 26 meeting.

The court said that if the Nov 26 meeting occurred as alleged, it provides a coherent and plausible explanation for Lim’s actions that the tribunal was obliged to consider.

Specifically, it could explain why Lim waited until Nov 26 to file the notice of change of solicitors.

“The (tribunal’s) dismissal of this evidence without proper consideration constituted a failure to evaluate all relevant evidence holistically, as required when assessing whether a charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt,” said the court.

As for the remaining charge, the court said Lim was “not dishonest” when he deposited the cheque into his firm’s account, because he believed that he was still representing Mr Suresh.

In sentencing, the court considered several recent cases, including one where a lawyer was fined $15,000 for mistakenly depositing $5,000 into an office account instead of the client account.

Another involved a lawyer who was fined $50,000 for banking $100,000 – paid by a potential property buyer – into the client account instead of the conveyancing account, where funds can be released only if authorised by both parties.

The money was later disbursed to his clients, the property sellers. The deal did not go through and no restitution was made.

In Lim’s case, the court said there was no potential loss to Mr Suresh.

Lim paid $30,000 to his former client after he was ordered to do so in a separate civil suit brought by Mr Suresh in 2020.

Separately, Lim is due to start a jail term of three months and a week.

He was found guilty of three charges under the Legal Profession Act, and was originally given six weeks’ jail and a fine of $1,000 by a district judge in February 2025.

On Feb 23, 2026, the High Court allowed an appeal by the prosecution and enhanced Lim’s sentence for practising law over a two-month period in 2021 without a valid certificate.

Justice Kannan Ramesh ordered Lim to surrender at the State Courts on April 24.