10 hours ago
4
SINGAPORE: Lawyer Lim Tean was fined S$30,000 (US$23,500) on Friday (Apr 10) over his conduct in handling a former client’s money, with the Court of Three Judges rejecting the Law Society of Singapore’s (LawSoc) bid to have him struck off the roll.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and Senior Judge Andrew Phang found that there was due cause for disciplinary sanction over Lim's second charge.
However, they found that LawSoc had failed to prove Lim's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the first charge, which accuses Lim of wrongfully receiving and cashing a cheque after being discharged by his former client, Mr Suresh Kumar A Jesupal.
The disciplinary case arose from a motor vehicle accident claim over which Mr Suresh had engaged Lim's firm, Carson Law Chambers, in October 2018.
LawSoc alleged that even after Lim had been discharged by Mr Suresh around Nov 13, 2019, the lawyer received or retained a cheque of S$30,000, which had been interim payment of the settlement sum to Mr Suresh.
This forms the subject of the first charge. On the same day, Mr Suresh appointed law firm Joseph Chen & Co to represent him in place of Lim.
The second charge relates to how Lim failed to pay the S$30,000 into the client account of his firm, in breach of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (LPSAR).
The charges amount to grossly improper conduct, LawSoc alleged.
A third charge, which accused Lim of misappropriating the money, was withdrawn after Mr Suresh declined to give evidence.
Lim, a veteran lawyer with more than 30 years of practice, was earlier found guilty by a disciplinary tribunal of the charges.
In a hearing before the Court of Three Judges in January, LawSoc argued for Lim to be struck off the roll, or for him to be suspended from practice for five years and to be fined S$30,000.
Representing himself, Lim, an opposition politician, had argued for a fine.
COURT OF THREE JUDGES' DECISION
Representing the Court of Three Judges, Chief Justice Menon said on the first charge that LawSoc had failed to challenge key evidence from Lim.
In particular, it had failed to dispute the authenticity or admissibility of documents produced by Lim. These were forms that Mr Suresh and his friend, Mr Tarmmar Razu Doriasamy, had signed to acknowledge receipts of payments of S$5,000 and S$22,200 to them respectively during a meeting on Nov 26, 2019.
This meeting was supposed to be a follow-up to an earlier meeting on Nov 15, 2019.
Lim's case was that he had met Mr Suresh on Nov 15, 2019, and parties had agreed that Lim would continue to act for Mr Suresh, bank the cheque and make payments.
However, the disciplinary tribunal's finding, which LawSoc also adopted, was that no meeting had occurred on Nov 15, 2019.
But since LawSoc did not challenge the evidence arising from the Nov 26, 2019 meeting, the Court of Three Judges said LawSoc was effectively bound to accept Lim’s version of events. This called into question the first charge against Lim, which stated that he had been discharged by Mr Suresh around Nov 13, 2019.
"We therefore do not see how (LawSoc) could be said to have discharged its burden of proving the elements of the first charge beyond a reasonable doubt," Chief Justice Menon said.
The evidence also cast doubt on the disciplinary tribunal's finding that there had been no meeting on Nov 15, 2019.
The disciplinary tribunal had erred in failing to consider and make appropriate findings in relation to Nov 26, 2019 meeting, and in dismissing it without adequate analysis, Chief Justice Menon said.
The Court of Three Judges accordingly set aside the conviction on the first charge.
On the second charge, which Lim did not seriously challenge, the court was satisfied it was made out beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chief Justice Menon said it was clear that the S$30,000 received was client money, which is governed by the LPSAR.
He added that Lim did not dispute that he had failed to deposit the cheque into Carson Law Chambers' client account.
Lim had argued that his failure to pay the cheque into a client account was from an oversight as he was unfamiliar with requirements that came with personal injury work. He added that his firm did not have a client account.
But Chief Justice Menon said this was not a defence.
"Ignorance of the requirements imposed by LPSAR is not an excuse for breaching them. If anything, it aggravates the breach because it is such a fundamental requirement applicable to all solicitors," Chief Justice Menon said.
"Indeed, the respondent’s purported ignorance and his non-compliance with the LPSAR bring dishonour to him in his profession."
The Court of Three Judges felt that a financial penalty was appropriate given there was no dishonesty.
"The respondent was not dishonest – he had deposited the cheque into Carson Law Chambers' office account because he believed that he was still engaged to represent Mr Suresh and was acting in accordance with Mr Suresh’s instructions, though even this would not have justified his actions since at least part of the money, even on this basis, constituted client money which was to be paid to Mr Suresh," Chief Justice Menon said.
The court decided on the amount of S$30,000 after considering the lack of mitigating factors and several aggravating factors that warranted a heavier fine.
Lim's claimed oversight for not paying the cheque into a client account was considered an aggravating factor.
"In our judgment, the respondent’s attitude to the serious responsibility on solicitors to manage and handle client moneys in accordance with the applicable rules reflects a severe lack of even basic diligence.
"It suggests a lack of interest in the high calling of solicitors who by virtue of their office are allowed to receive and hold client monies. The respondent’s cavalier attitude towards these obligations is most regrettable," said Chief Justice Menon.
Moreover, Lim should have clarified who or which firm was acting for Mr Suresh, notwithstanding Lim's claim of "bad blood" between himself and Mr Joseph Chen, Chief Justice Menon said.
Lawyers should conduct themselves professionally whatever their personal animosities, the Chief Justice added.
Another factor the court took into consideration was Lim's standing as a senior practitioner with more than 25 years of experience at the material time.
"It is well-established that the more senior an advocate and solicitor, the more damage he does to the standing of the legal profession by virtue of his misconduct," said Chief Justice Menon.
Lim is to pay the penalty within 14 days of the judgment and costs of S$12,000.
Separately, in February last year, Lim was given six weeks’ jail and a S$1,000 fine for practising law without a valid certificate. He still faces pending criminal charges and is due for a pre-trial conference at the State Courts later this month.
