Law Society calls for lawyer Lim Tean to be struck off over handling of S$30,000 belonging to client
Lim Tean claimed that he had been acting on his client's instructions and questioned why the Law Society did not produce the client as a witness.
by Lydia Lam · CNA · JoinRead a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) on Friday (Jan 23) urged the Court of Three Judges to strike lawyer Lim Tean off the rolls for his conduct in handling S$30,000 (US$22,000) belonging to a former client.
Lim, 61, argued that he should be given only a fine if he is to be sanctioned, questioning why LawSoc did not get the client to testify and claiming that he had acted on the client's instructions.
Lim was found guilty by a disciplinary tribunal of two charges of grossly improper conduct by deliberately retaining a cheque for S$30,000 from a client who had discharged him.
The opposition politician also failed to pay the cheque into his law firm's client account.
The case was uncovered after the client, Mr Suresh Kumar A Jesupal, made a complaint.
He had appointed Lim, a lawyer of 30 years from Carson Law Chambers at the time, to act for him in a motor vehicle accident claim in October 2018.
A judgment was issued in the case about a year later, awarding S$50,000 to Mr Suresh.
A sum of S$30,000 was paid by Willy Tay Chambers, the solicitors for AXA Insurance, to Lim and his firm, as interim payment of the settlement sum to Mr Suresh as ordered in the judgment.
However, Mr Suresh Kumar decided to discharge Lim as his lawyer, appointing Joseph Chen & Co to act for him instead on Nov 13, 2019.
Despite a letter sent to Carson Law Chambers by Joseph Chen & Co stating that Lim must withdraw from representing Mr Suresh, Lim kept the sum of S$30,000 and deposited it into his firm's bank account instead of the client account which is meant to hold monies for clients.
LawSoc had initially brought a third charge alleging that Mr Lim had misappropriated the sum of S$30,000 by failing or neglecting to pay it to Mr Suresh Kumar.
However, LawSoc withdrew the charge after Mr Suresh Kumar declined to give evidence for the prosecution which the prosecution found necessary.
On Friday, counsel for LawSoc Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam sought a striking off for Lim, or a suspension in the alternative.
WHY WASN'T MR SURESH CALLED?
The Court of Three Judges posed several questions to Mr Chenthil on his case, especially on why LawSoc had not called Mr Suresh as a witness.
Mr Chenthil explained that the original evidential hearing was adjourned once because Mr Suresh was undergoing surgery.
Just prior to the refixed hearing, he indicated that he was unwilling to participate further in the proceedings, but did not say why.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon asked why Mr Suresh was not subpoenaed.
Mr Chenthil said the position was taken that the evidence of contemporaneous documents was sufficient for the first two charges, and his evidence was determined to be "unnecessary" for these two charges.
A third charge, which accused Lim of misappropriating the money, was withdrawn as it would have been unfair to proceed with it if Mr Suresh was not coming forward.
LIM'S DEFENCE
Lim, who represented himself, told the court that he did not have much to say about the second charge regarding the depositing of money into the office account instead of the client account.
"I think my explanation all along has been clear. This was (the) very first motor accident claim I was handling, and I could not do such work. I was asked to do it," he said.
"In hindsight I should not have taken the case but I did. If I had known (that it needed a client account) I would have rejected it ... My firm never operated with a client account."
On the first charge, he said the central allegation was that he acted for the client despite having been discharged.
He said Mr Suresh was "the most material witness" on whether he had been discharged unequivocally, but he did not testify and was not subjected to cross-examination.
Lim said Mr Suresh had told him he still wanted him to act as his lawyer, and that Mr Suresh said he wanted the money.
Lim said he had given the bulk of the money to Mr Suresh and Mr Suresh's creditor, showing acknowledgment slips signed by the two men.
Asked about why he had not asked Mr Joseph Chen about the latter replacing him as Mr Suresh's lawyer, Lim said: "I'm going to be very blunt and very forthright. I personally had a disgust of Mr Joseph Chen, in those days and even till now."
He claimed that Mr Chen had been writing him "voluminous letters" every day, with Lim hardly replying because he had "a certain opinion of him".
The S$30,000 was not the final payment but an interim one, Lim explained. He said the total settlement was S$50,000, and Mr Suresh kept asking him when he could get the final sum.
"I, being new, I had no idea, so I asked Willy Tay - the lawyer for the insurers - he said you will get it sometime by the first week of December. Suresh kept bugging me. I kept telling him the money was coming. By the time the money did not arrive by Dec 6, again he effected the change of solicitors. This to me is the sequence of events," said Lim.
He said this was his very first motor accident case and he had "no idea of the legislative framework" but was pressured into doing it.
He said Mr Suresh had changed three or four sets of solicitors before and he was asked by his friend to help because Mr Suresh had no money and he "foolishly did".
"In fact, I'm the one who is absolutely out of pocket," said Lim. "Because despite being awarded S$18,000 of costs by the court, and later on I think Joseph Chen went to negotiate with Willy Tay and he got S$15,000. I have not obtained to this day a single cent of those costs."
He said that if he were to be sanctioned, a very small fine "and nothing more" should be given.
He said that he was separately charged in the State Courts with criminal breach of trust over the S$30,000, but the prosecution proceeded on another charge against him at trial for practising without a licence.
This criminal breach of trust charge has been pending since, with several adjournments by the prosecution, claimed Lim.
At the latest pre-trial conference, the prosecution asked for a year-long stand-down or postponement because Mr Suresh was medically unfit to come to court, Lim claimed.
"I asked the district judge to dismiss the charge. I said this is ridiculous," said Lim. "Because of this charge I was arrested in 2020, it has now been six years, nothing has proceeded and they are asking for a one-year stand-down."
Lim said he also faces another case for harassment.
Earlier, he apologised to the court for his late submissions, saying he had been unwell since late July as he has a condition known as status migrainosus and had been warded twice in hospital.
The condition afflicts him with severe daily migraines, with attacks taking place over 72 hours or more, he said.
"My work in court has crawled to a snail pace and it takes great effort and a lot of paracetamol every day to get myself up and I do apologise," he said.
While the Chief Justice said this conduct was "most unsatisfactory" as it would have been a "basic courtesy" for Lim to convey this to the court, he accepted the apology and noted that the material submitted was short.
The court reserved its judgment and will release its verdict at a later date.
Aside from these proceedings, Lim was given six weeks’ jail and a S$1,000 fine in February last year for practising law without a valid certificate.
He said he would appeal against his conviction and sentence.
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app