SINGAPORE: Lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean faces possible disciplinary action after a disciplinary tribunal found him guilty of two charges of grossly improper conduct over the handling of S$30,000 (US$22,100) that belonged to a former client.
The tribunal, which oversees disciplinary matters for lawyers, found that Mr Lim had deliberately retained a cheque for S$30,000 from a client who had discharged him, intending to pay himself and the client’s creditor.
He also failed to pay the cheque into his law firm’s client account.
According to a report by the disciplinary tribunal made available on Tuesday (Aug 22), the case was uncovered after the former client, Mr Suresh Kumar A Jesupal, made a complaint.
Mr Suresh Kumar had appointed Mr Lim, a lawyer of 30 years from Carson Law Chambers at the time, to act for him in a motor vehicle accident claim on Oct 23, 2018.
About a year later on Oct 8, 2019, a judgment was issued in the case, awarding S$50,000 to Mr Suresh Kumar.
A sum of S$30,000 was paid by Willy Tay Chambers, the solicitors for AXA Insurance, to Mr 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 Mr Lim as his lawyer.
On Nov 13, 2019, Mr Suresh Kumar appointed Joseph Chen & Co to act for him instead.
That same day, Joseph Chen & Co sent a letter to Carson Law Chambers, stating that they had been instructed by Mr Suresh Kumar to take over the case and to represent him in all related proceedings.
The email also told Mr Lim that he “must withdraw” from representing Mr Suresh, as Mr Suresh had discharged Mr Lim from representing him with immediate effect from Nov 13, 2019.
Despite this, Mr Lim kept the sum of S$30,000 that belonged to Mr Suresh Kumar and deposited the money into his firm’s bank account, instead of its client account.
The Law Society of Singapore (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.
Mr Lim argued that even after the email informing him of the change of solicitors was sent, Mr Suresh Kumar continued to go to Carson Law Chambers’ office for meetings.
Mr Lim also claimed that there was a previous arrangement where Mr Suresh Kumar was supposed to pay the proceeds of the judgment sum to Mr Suresh Kumar’s creditor and Mr Lim, before any money went to Mr Suresh Kumar.
TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS
The tribunal found that Mr Lim was fully aware by Nov 14, 2019 that Mr Suresh Kumar had discharged him as a lawyer.
Despite knowing this, he deposited the cheque into his firm’s bank account.
“(Mr Lim’s) act was not accidental or inadvertent but a deliberate one,” said the tribunal. “No evidence has been presented by (Mr Lim) as to what actually happened to the money thereafter.”
The tribunal said it was “troubled” that Mr Lim did not state that Carson Law Chambers had the cheque for S$30,000 in his response to Mr Suresh Kumar’s new solicitors.
The tribunal said the inference was that Mr Lim had “intentionally kept this fact” from Mr Suresh Kumar and his new lawyers until after he had dealt with the proceeds.
By his own admission, said the tribunal, Mr Lim was “seeking to use” the money to pay Mr Suresh Kumar’s creditor, as well as his own fees.
On the second charge relating to paying the cheque to his law firm’s bank account instead of the client account, Mr Lim admitted breaching the related rule. However, he said this failure was an oversight and not a deliberate attempt to flout the rules.
“It is trite that client’s money is to be treated with the utmost care,” said the tribunal. “The requirement for a law firm to have a client account has been in existence for many years, and this requirement is based on the need to protect client’s money and to prevent any mixing of client’s money with other monies.”
The tribunal said it found it “difficult” to believe that Mr Lim, despite having been a lawyer for 30 years, did not know of the requirement to have a client account, or that he had to pay client’s money into this account.
The tribunal found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action.
Any sanction Mr Lim may be given will be decided at a later date.
