Lawyer Lim Tean found guilty of practising without valid certificate

SINGAPORE: Lawyer Lim Tean was found guilty on Friday (26 July) of practising as a lawyer for about two months without a valid certificate.

The 59-year-old faced three charges under the Legal Profession Act for acting as an advocate and solicitor without authorisation between 1 April 2021 and 9 June 2021.

Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun convicted Lim on all charges after declining the defence’s request to adjourn the verdict, pending a criminal motion at the High Court on this coming Monday, heard by Justice Hoo Sheau Peng.

According to the report by Channel News Asia, Lim’s lawyer, Patrick Fernandez, argued that the High Court’s decision would impact the current verdict, as the motion seeks to retrieve correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) about other lawyers in similar situations.

“Today is Friday, your honour, the matter is going to be heard on Monday – it’s only a matter of a couple of days,” argued Mr Fernandez. He emphasised that the correspondence was relevant, pointing out that a trial witness testified about other lawyers in similar situations, which led Lim to question why he was singled out.

However, Judge Ong rejected the argument.

Prosecution’s Case

Deputy Public Prosecutors Edwin Soh and Bryan Wong argued that Lim “clearly breached” the Legal Profession Act, which mandates that practising certificates are valid from the date of issue to the end of the practice year.

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

In the two months prior, Lim carried on or defended court proceedings on 32 occasions and prepared related documents as many times, said the prosecution.

“Instead of pleading guilty as a sign of remorse, the accused claimed trial. His conduct during the trial was demonstrative of his guilt,” said the prosecution.

They added that Lim had no valid defence and had repeatedly attempted to delay proceedings with “irrelevant constitutional arguments” based on being “singled out for prosecution.”

They pointed out that the trial was initially fixed to begin on 29 August 2023 but was adjourned after Lim sought to change his lawyer.

On 11 December 2023, Lim applied for another adjournment due to gastroenteritis. The trial only began on 27 December 2023.

During the trial, Lim’s lawyers requested correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and AGC, but the prosecution declined.

A week before the hearing in May 2024, Lim filed a criminal motion for the High Court to direct the prosecution to disclose the correspondence.

However, a day before the trial, Lim filed an application for an adjournment pending the criminal motion.

Defence’s Case

The defence argued that Lim’s practising certificate, dated 10 June 2021, authorised him to act as an advocate and solicitor between 1 April 2021 and 9 June 2021. They cited the practice year, which runs from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, as covering the period of Lim’s alleged unauthorised practice.

The defence also produced a transcript of a former Law Society assistant director’s testimony, who stated there was no specific phrasing in the certificate indicating it was effective from 10 June 2021.

Lim had informed the Law Society about his lack of a practising certificate and was advised he could go to court but needed to inform the judge, which he claimed he did.

Criminal Motion to Retrieve Correspondence 

A criminal was filed after the prosecution refused to disclose the correspondence between the Supreme Court registrar and AGC where it was claimed that a registrar of the Supreme Court notified AGC when the registrar noticed that Mr Lim was attending court without a valid practising certificate, instead of having a first information report lodged with the CAD (Commercial Affairs Department) leading to the charges against Lim.

In a previous hearing, Lim, through his legal representative, Mr Fernandez, expressed disbelief that the registrar informed AGC about his court appearances without a valid practising certificate.

Lim also believed that he was not the only one attending court without the necessary certification.

“Mr Lim is asking to see the correspondence to establish the truth of the complaint and to see whether other solicitors were in the list. If there were, why is he being singled out for prosecution?”

Mr Fernandez argued that without access to the correspondence between the Supreme Court registrar and AGC, Lim’s defence will be “crippled”.

In response, DPP Soh stated that the prosecution would not disclose the correspondence as it contained official communications between agencies, revealing internal government procedures.

He emphasized that Lim had already been charged with strict liability offences based on attending court without a valid practising certificate, clarifying that this wasn’t an inquiry into other cases.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Ong ruled that there was “no ambiguity in reading and interpreting” the relevant section of the Legal Profession Act. He clarified that the practising certificate issued to Lim clearly stated it only came into force on 10 June 2021. The judge found that Lim had failed to demonstrate any reasonable basis for his purported misinterpretation of the law.

Judge Ong further stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution conclusively established Lim’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He noted that Lim’s actions, including his attempts to delay proceedings and his failure to provide a valid defence, reinforced the verdict.

Case Adjourned for Sentencing and Other Charges

The case was adjourned to 5 November for arguments on sentencing.

For practising as a lawyer without a valid practising certificate under the Legal Profession Act, Lim could face up to six months in jail, a fine of up to S$25,000 (US$18,619), or both.

Lim, who is also the leader of Peoples Voice, a political party in Singapore, faces four other charges that have been dismissed for the time being.

These charges include criminal breach of trust as an attorney and unlawful stalking. He has indicated through his lawyer that he intends to contest these charges.