\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 Lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean was fined $30,000 by the Court of Three Judges on April 10 in a disciplinary case over his handling of a $30,000 cheque that was meant for his client. <\/p>\n
The Law Society of Singapore had called for Lim to be struck off the rolls<\/span><\/a>, while Lim asked for \u201ca very small fine\u201d. <\/p>\n In a written judgment on April 10, the court said a financial penalty was the appropriate disciplinary sanction in this case because there was no finding of dishonesty against Lim. <\/p>\n The court cited several factors in imposing a \u201cheavier fine\u201d, including Lim\u2019s cavalier attitude towards lawyers\u2019 <\/i><\/b>obligations in handling clients\u2019 money and his status as a senior practitioner with more than 25 years of experience at the time. <\/p>\n In 2019, Lim had banked the cheque into the office account of his firm, Carson Law Chambers, instead of a separate account for holding clients\u2019 monies as required under legal profession rules. <\/p>\n The cheque was interim payment for a judgment sum awarded to the client, Mr Suresh Kumar A. Jesupal, for a traffic accident claim. <\/p>\n Lim, 61, had been referred to the court to be sanctioned after he was found guilty of grossly improper conduct by a disciplinary tribunal on two charges in August 2023. <\/p>\n The first charge was for banking the cheque despite having been discharged by Mr Suresh, and the second was for failing to deposit the cheque into the account for clients\u2019 money. <\/p>\n However, the court, which comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Tay Yong Kwang and Justice Andrew Phang, overturned the conviction for the first charge. <\/p>\n It said the Law Society had not proved the first charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The society had essentially relied on documents to prove its case because Mr Suresh refused to testify after filing a complaint to the society. <\/p>\n Based on the documents, Mr Suresh appeared to have discharged Lim on Nov 13, 2019, when he appointed another law firm, Joseph Chen & Co, to act for him. <\/p>\n The cheque was issued in favour of Carson Law Chambers on Nov 14 that year and banked the next day. <\/p>\n 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\u2019s lawyers. <\/p>\n Mr Suresh has stated that this was done without his knowledge, authority or consent. <\/p>\n Lim contended that at a meeting on Nov 15, 2019, Mr Suresh had authorised him to bank the cheque. <\/p>\n 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\u2019s, in cash. <\/p>\n Lim presented to the disciplinary tribunal acknowledgement notes purportedly signed by each man. <\/p>\n In its judgment, the court pointed out that the Law Society did not challenge the authenticity or admissibility of the acknowledgement forms. <\/p>\n The society also did not contest Lim\u2019s contention that the Nov 26 meeting had taken place. <\/p>\n The court said that if Lim\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n The court said that if the Nov 26 meeting occurred as alleged, it provides a coherent and plausible explanation for Lim\u2019s actions that the tribunal was obliged to consider. <\/p>\n Specifically, it could explain why Lim waited until Nov 26 to file the notice of change of solicitors. <\/p>\n \u201cThe (tribunal\u2019s) 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,\u201d said the court. <\/p>\n As for the remaining charge, the court said Lim was \u201cnot dishonest\u201d when he deposited the cheque into his firm\u2019s account, because he believed that he was still representing Mr Suresh. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Another involved a lawyer who was fined $50,000 for banking $100,000 \u2013 paid by a potential property buyer \u2013 into the client account instead of the conveyancing account, where funds can be released only if authorised by both parties. <\/p>\n The money was later disbursed to his clients, the property sellers. The deal did not go through and no restitution was made. <\/p>\n In Lim\u2019s case, the court said there was no potential loss to Mr Suresh. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Separately, Lim is due to start a jail term of three months and a week. <\/p>\n He was found guilty of three charges under the Legal Profession Act, and was originally given six weeks\u2019 jail and a fine of $1,000 by a district judge in February 2025. <\/p>\n On Feb 23, 2026, the High Court allowed an appeal by the prosecution and enhanced Lim\u2019s sentence for practising law<\/span><\/a> over a two-month period in 2021 without a valid certificate. <\/p>\n Justice Kannan Ramesh ordered Lim\u00a0to surrender at the State Courts on April 24.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n