Lawyer Lim Tean was found guilty on Friday (Jul 26) of practising as a lawyer for about two months when he did not have a valid certificate.

Lim, 59, had claimed trial to the three charges under the Legal Profession Act for acting as an advocate and solicitor without authorisation between Apr 1, 2021, and Jun 9, 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 Monday.

Lim’s lawyer Patrick Fernandez said that the High Court’s decision would have a bearing on the current verdict.
The criminal motion would be for Lim to retrieve correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) about other lawyers who had been in the same situation as him.
“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.

“In the interest of fairness your honour, my client’s position is that the correspondence is relevant,” the lawyer added, pointing out that a trial witness had testified that there were three or four other lawyers who had been in similar situations.
“(This) led my client to wonder aloud every day of the week if there were others like him, why should the registry … just single him out and refer the matter to AGC.”

However, Judge Ong rejected the argument.

PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
Deputy Public Prosecutors Edwin Soh and Bryan Wong said that Lim had “clearly breached” the Legal Professions Act, which states that every practising certificate will be valid from the date of issue to the end of the (practice) year.

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

In the two months prior, Lim carried on or defended court proceedings on 32 occasions and prepared documents or instruments relating to proceedings 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. The accused had no valid defence to his charges,” said the prosecution.
“He elected to remain silent and chose not to call any witnesses when the defence’s case was called.”

The prosecution added that Lim had repeatedly attempted to delay proceedings with “irrelevant constitutional arguments” based on him being “singled out for prosecution”.

They pointed out that the trial was fixed to begin on Aug 29, 2023 but was adjourned after the accused sought to change his lawyer.

On Dec 11, 2023, Lim applied for another adjournment as he had gastroenteritis.

The trial only began on Dec 27, 2023. Partway through, Lim’s lawyers requested the correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and AGC but the prosecution declined the request.

A week before the hearing in May 2024, Lim filed a criminal motion for the High Court to direct that the prosecution disclose the correspondence.
A day before the trial, however, Lim then filed an application for an adjournment pending the criminal motion.

DEFENCE ARGUMENTS
His lawyers argued that the practising certificate, dated Jun 10, 2021, authorised Lim to act as an advocate and solicitor between Apr 1, 2021 and Jun 9, 2021.

The practising certificate stated that Lim had been “authorised to practise as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore during the practice year terminating on Mar 31, 2022”.
This practice year, which was from Apr 1, 2021, to Mar 31, 2022, would have captured the period when Lim was accused of acting as a lawyer without authorisation, the defence argued.

The lawyers also produced a transcript of the testimony of a former assistant director at the Law Society Rejini Raman, who said that there was no specific phrasing in the practising certificate which indicated that it was effective from Jun 10, 2021.

The defence argued that Lim did not intend to commit the offences, or that he had exercised reasonable care.

Mr Lim made it clear to the Law Society that he did not have a practising certificate and asked if he could still go to court. He was told that he could but he had to inform the judge, said the defence.

Mr Lim said that he had informed the judges of this matter during court proceedings, but that the exchange was not captured in transcripts.“If he truly intended to commit the offences, if he wanted to act as an unauthorised person and do so in a stealthy manner, he would not have told the (Law Society),” the defence told the court.

Judge Ong said it was not disputed that Lim was issued a practising certificate dated Jun 10, 2021.
The judge ruled that there was “no ambiguity in reading and interpreting” the relevant section of the Legal Profession Act, and that the practising certificate only came into force on Jun 10, 2021.

Mr Lim had failed to show how he could have reasonably been mistaken in his interpretations, the judge said. He found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the charges against Lim.

The case was adjourned to Nov 5 for arguments on sentencing.
Mr Lim has four other charges – including criminal breach of trust as an attorney and unlawful stalking – that have been stood down for the time being. He indicated through his lawyer that he intends to contest these charges.

For acting as a lawyer without a valid practising certificate under the Legal Profession Act, he could be jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$25,000 (US$18,619), or both.