Law Society seeks to strike off Lim Tean over mishandling of client funds

The Law Society of Singapore has sought to strike off veteran lawyer Lim Tean over allegations of grossly improper conduct in the handling of S$30,000 (US$22,000) paid to him for a client in a civil matter.

The disciplinary proceedings, heard by the Court of Three Judges on 23 January 2026, centre on whether Lim wrongfully retained the interim settlement sum after being discharged and whether he failed to handle the funds in accordance with professional rules by depositing the money into his firm’s office account rather than a designated client account.

Lim, who represented himself, denied wrongdoing. He contested the charge that he was discharged as counsel and argued he continued to act for the client with valid authority. He also stated that the funds had been returned in full.

Law Society’s case: improper retention and account breach

According to LawSoc, Lim was acting for Mr Suresh Kumar A Jesupal in a motor vehicle accident claim. In 2019, the court awarded S$50,000 to Mr Suresh. Solicitors for AXA Insurance issued a cheque for S$30,000 as an interim payment, which was made payable to Lim’s firm, Carson Law Chambers.

LawSoc submitted that on 13 November 2019, Joseph Chen & Co filed a notice to take over the case, formally discharging Lim. Despite receiving that notice, Lim retained the cheque and deposited it into his firm’s office account instead of a client account, which is required under professional practice standards for holding client monies.

LawSoc brought two charges of grossly improper conduct:

1. Continuing to act for a client despite being discharged; and

2. Failing to deposit the cheque into a client account.

A third charge — misappropriation of the funds — was withdrawn after Mr Suresh declined to testify.

Counsel for LawSoc, Chenthil Kumarasingam, said the disciplinary tribunal’s findings were supported by documentary evidence and that a striking off was appropriate. He argued that Lim’s actions showed a disregard for core duties owed to clients and the legal profession.

When questioned by the court on why Mr Suresh was not subpoenaed, LawSoc responded that his evidence was considered unnecessary for the two remaining charges. It acknowledged that the misappropriation charge could not proceed fairly without Mr Suresh’s testimony, which is why it was dropped.

Lim’s defence: no formal discharge and funds returned

Lim denied that there had been a formal or unequivocal discharge. He argued in court that the notice of change in solicitors filed by Joseph Chen & Co did not conclusively terminate his role as counsel, as subsequent conduct showed he continued to act on the client’s instructions.

He pointed to a series of events on 26 November 2019 — nearly two weeks after the notice — including his disbursement of S$22,200 to a third party named Tamar and S$5,000 directly to Mr Suresh.

On the same day, Lim filed a document to change solicitors back to Carson Law Chambers, indicating he remained involved. Another switch followed on 6 December when Joseph Chen filed to act again.

Lim argued that this sequence of filings and transactions demonstrated the solicitor-client relationship had not been definitively severed. He said the Law Society’s position that he was discharged on 13 or 14 November could not be reconciled with these facts.

In April 2024, the Court of Three Judges set aside the disciplinary tribunal’s decision and ordered the matter to be sent back for a retrial.

He noted that Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon highlighted the relevance of post-discharge events. Lim also said LawSoc’s counsel ultimately conceded the relevance of those events when questioned.

Clarification on sanctions and client account

Lim clarified that he did not propose any sanction for the first charge, as he was challenging the disciplinary tribunal’s findings in full. He stated that if he were correct in contesting the charge, no penalty could be imposed.

He did, however, propose a small fine in relation to the second charge, concerning the deposit into the wrong account. Lim said this occurred because his firm did not operate a client account, which he argued is not mandatory unless a firm is handling specific types of work such as conveyancing.

Lim acknowledged that he had limited experience in motor accident matters and accepted the case at the request of a friend, due to the client's financial difficulties. He said he acted in good faith and relied on the client’s ongoing instructions.

Related legal matters and personal circumstances

Lim also told the court that he is facing a related criminal breach of trust charge over the same S$30,000, filed by the Public Prosecutor in October 2020 — just days before he was due to represent blogger Leong Sze Hian in a defamation case involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

He said the charge remains pending after multiple adjournments. At the most recent pre-trial conference, the prosecution sought a one-year stand-down due to Mr Suresh’s medical unavailability. Lim said he had applied to have the charge dismissed, criticising the delay as unreasonable and prejudicial.

Lim faces a separate case for harassment and was sentenced in February 2025 to six weeks' jail and a S$1,000 fine for practising without a valid certificate — a conviction he is appealing.

Health concerns and apology

Lim apologised for the late filing of his submissions, saying he has been suffering from status migrainosus, a neurological condition that results in prolonged and severe migraine attacks. He said he had been hospitalised twice since July 2025 and that the condition had significantly impacted his ability to work.

Chief Justice Menon noted that while it would have been courteous to inform the court earlier, the explanation was accepted and the late materials were brief.