Law Society asks for Lim Tean to be struck off over handling of $30,000 meant for client
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 24 Jan 2026
Author: Selina Lum
Lawyer and politician Lim Tean argued before the Court of Three Judges that “a very small fine and nothing more” should be imposed.
The Law Society of Singapore on Jan 23 asked for lawyer and politician Lim Tean to be struck off the rolls over his handling of a $30,000 cheque that was meant for his client.
Lim had deposited the $30,000 cheque from AXA Insurance into the bank account of his firm, Carson Law Chambers, on Nov 15, 2019, even though the client had discharged him two days earlier.
The sum was interim payment for a $50,000 judgment awarded to the client, Mr Suresh Kumar A. Jesupal, for a traffic accident claim.
Lim, a lawyer of more than 30 years, argued before the Court of Three Judges that “a very small fine and nothing more” should be imposed.
He contended that he later handed the cash to Mr Suresh’s creditor and Mr Suresh in accordance with the client’s wishes, and that each man signed an acknowledgement.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Tay Yong Kwang and Justice Andrew Phang, reserved judgment and will give its decision at a later date.
Lim is also the founder of opposition party Peoples Voice (PV) and a co-founder of the People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR), an alliance which includes PV.
In August 2023, he was found guilty of grossly improper conduct by a disciplinary tribunal on two charges – for banking in the cheque despite having been discharged and for breaching rules that require him to deposit the cheque into a separate account for holding clients’ money.
The tribunal, appointed by the Chief Justice and comprising former High Court judge Andrew Ang and veteran lawyer Philip Fong, had decided the case based on documents because neither Lim nor Mr Suresh took the stand.
The tribunal found the case serious enough for Lim to face disciplinary sanctions before the court, which can suspend errant lawyers or strike them off the rolls.
Seeking a striking-off on Jan 23, the Law Society, represented by Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam, noted that the tribunal found that Lim’s act “was not accidental or inadvertent but a deliberate one”.
Mr Kumarasingam contended that Lim had intentionally kept the fact that he received the cheque from Mr Suresh’s new lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen.
Lim admitted that depositing the cheque into his firm’s bank account was “not in accordance with legislation”.
He said that he was unaware at the time that he was required to pay the money into a separate account for clients’ monies, and that his firm did not have such an account.
Lim said: “This was the very first motor vehicle accident claim I was handling. I was asked to do it. In hindsight, I should not have taken up the case but I did.”
He argued that Mr Suresh did not testify during the disciplinary proceedings, which made the tribunal’s finding on the first charge “absolutely unsafe”.
Lim noted that the Law Society had originally brought a third charge against him for misappropriating the $30,000, but this was withdrawn owing to Mr Suresh’s refusal to testify.
He alleged that at a meeting on Nov 15, 2019, Mr Suresh authorised him to bank in the cheque.
He claimed that he later gave the cash to Mr Tarmmar Razu Doriasamy, who was Mr Suresh’s creditor, and to Mr Suresh.
Mr Kumarasingam, however, argued that there was a lack of documentation on the alleged Nov 15 meeting, noting that it was important for lawyers to be extremely proper when dealing with clients’ money.
He noted that Lim did not mention this purported meeting in the papers he had filed for the original disciplinary hearing.
Lim brought up this meeting for the first time after he decided to testify before the tribunal in a second hearing.
Separately, Lim was sentenced to six weeks’ jail and a fine of $1,000 on Feb 17, 2025, for representing clients without a valid practising certificate between April 1 and June 9, 2021. He has filed an appeal.
He also has other pending charges for offences including harassment and criminal breach of trust.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
8