SINGAPORE - A lawyer, who breached a legal profession rule when he supervised two trainees even though he was not qualified to do so, was on Monday suspended for 1½ years.

Mr Clarence Lun said he failed to read the rule - which states that a supervising solicitor must have had a practising certificate for at least five years out of the seven years before the start of the supervision - before he took on the two trainees.

Mr Lun, who was then with law firm Foxwood, held a practising certificate for less than three years when he supervised Mr Lim Teng Jie and Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil, who started their training contracts on Dec 16, 2019, and Jan 2, 2020, respectively.

The suspension imposed by the Court of Three Judges was longer than the period sought by the Law Society, which argued that Mr Lun should be punished with a suspension of not more than a year.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the court will issue detailed written grounds in due course.

Mr Sarbjit Singh Chopra, who represented the Law Society, argued that Mr Lun had not taken steps to familiarise himself with the rules.

"It pains me... to say this. It just seems like he didn't care," he said.

Mr Mark Seah, who represented Mr Lun, said his client was very sorry for his mistake and that this was not a case that warranted disciplinary action.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Menon noted that harm was caused to Mr Lim, who effectively wasted six weeks, as the time he spent working under Mr Lun did not count towards his six-month training stint.

Chief Justice Menon said harm could also have been caused to the firm's clients, because work was being done by an unqualified person who was not being supervised by a qualified person.

"I think the gravity of the matter has not been appreciated at all by your client," he told Mr Seah.

According to Mr Lun, he realised that he was not qualified to be a supervising solicitor on Jan 6, 2020, when he checked the rules while he was in Perth waiting for a flight back to Singapore.

Mr Lim, who was informed on Jan 14, 2020, then had to find a training contract with another law firm and make arrangements relating to his admission to the Bar.

Ms Sunil herself had decided to terminate her training contract for personal reasons on Jan 4, 2020, and told Mr Lun over the phone on Jan 5.

During this conversation, Mr Lun told her that she would have to pay $2,000, which was a month's salary in lieu of notice.

On Jan 9, which was after he realised that he was not qualified to supervise her, Mr Lun sent Ms Sunil a text message asking for payment.

Chief Justice Menon noted that very little has been been put forward to explain why the light bulb went off in Mr Lun's head on Jan 6.

The Chief Justice also said it was "problematic" that after it occurred to Mr Lun that he was not qualified, he did not stop Mr Lim from doing legal work and pressed on getting money from Ms Sunil.

Mr Seah replied that it had not dawned upon Mr Lun that Ms Sunil's training contract had been rendered void.

Mr Lun's suspension takes effect on Nov 7. He was also ordered to pay $10,000 in legal costs to Law Society.