Lawyer and politician Lim Tean gets longer jail term for practising law without valid certificate
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Lim Tean was originally given six weeks’ jail and a fine of $1,000 by a district judge in February 2025. He was found guilty of three charges under the Legal Profession Act.
PHOTO: ST FILE
- Lawyer Lim Tean's jail term for practising law without a valid certificate was enhanced by the High Court to three months and one week.
- Lim illegally practised from April to June 2021 due to difficulties in obtaining professional indemnity insurance, a prerequisite for lawyers.
- Lim is considering appealing the High Court decision, while also facing other pending charges and a Law Society call to be struck off.
AI generated
SINGAPORE – The High Court on Feb 23 enhanced the sentence handed down to lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean for practising law over a two-month period in 2021 without a valid certificate.
Lim, 61, had been given six weeks’ jail
He appealed to the High Court against his conviction and sentence, while the prosecution appealed for a stiffer sentence of between five and eight months’ jail.
On Feb 23, Justice Kannan Ramesh allowed the prosecution’s appeal and enhanced Lim’s jail term to three months and a week.
Lim, who was represented by Mr Patrick Fernandez and Mr Mohamed Arshad for the appeal, was granted a deferment of the sentence.
Justice Ramesh ordered Lim to surrender at the State Courts on April 24.
Mr Arshad said his client is considering bringing the case further to the Court of Appeal, and that Lim has to prepare a mitigation plea for a client in a pending criminal case.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Yiwen noted that Lim had no right of further appeal, but did not object to the deferment.
In Singapore’s criminal justice system, there is only one tier of appeal. However, if a question of law of public interest arises out of an appeal to the High Court, the case can be referred to the Court of Appeal –the highest court in the land – to answer the question.
The court decides whether the question is one of sufficient public interest to be worth answering.
In a post on Facebook later on Feb 23, Lim said he has instructed his legal team to “do the necessary to appeal” against Justice Ramesh’s decision.
He added: “I will have more to say in the coming days.”
Lim is also the founder of opposition party Peoples Voice (PV) and a co-founder of the People’s Alliance for Reform, an alliance that includes PV.
He still has pending charges for other offences, including harassment and criminal breach of trust.
Under the Constitution, a person who is jailed for at least one year or fined a minimum of $10,000 is disqualified from running for election or holding a parliamentary seat for five years.
For more than two months, from April 1, 2021 to June 9, 2021, Lim attended a multitude of court hearings and submitted many documents to court while not having a valid practising certificate in force.
In Singapore, lawyers must apply for their practising certificate every practice year, which runs from April 1 to March 31 of the following year.
If a certificate is issued in April, it is deemed to be in force from the first day of that month.
Lim failed to apply for his practising certificate for practice year 2021/2022 by March 31, 2021.
This was because he faced difficulties with obtaining his professional indemnity insurance, which was a prerequisite for applying for his practising certificate.
Lim applied for his practising certificate only on June 9, 2021, and was issued the certificate the next day.
He claimed trial to the charges, but chose to remain silent and declined to call any witnesses when called to defend himself during the trial.
On Feb 23, Justice Ramesh upheld Lim’s conviction.
The judge rejected Lim’s argument that his practising certificate was backdated to April 1, 2021.
Justice Ramesh also agreed with the lower court’s finding that the offence was one of strict liability.
A strict liability offence is one where a person would be convicted as long as the prosecution can prove the act was committed, regardless of the person’s intent or knowledge.
However, Justice Ramesh said the district judge had erred in sentencing on all three charges.
The first charge faced by Lim was for issuing a writ of summons for his client on April 1, 2021. The second charge was for representing various clients in attending court proceedings on 32 occasions. The third charge was for preparing court documents on 32 occasions.
The district judge had imposed a $1,000 fine for the first charge and six weeks’ jail each for the other two charges. Justice Ramesh said one week’s jail was appropriate for the first charge.
The district judge had reasoned that Lim’s culpability was low because the offence was committed in April, which is the “grace period” that allows for the backdating of practising certificates.
But Justice Ramesh said there was no evidence on whether Lim reasonably believed that the issue on professional indemnity insurance coverage would be resolved in time for him to be issued the certificate by April 30, 2021.
For the second and third charges, he imposed three months’ jail each, to run concurrently. He noted that these two charges related to a series of acts committed over a period of time, and cited a 2025 case where the High Court set out the sentencing approach to be adopted when dealing with amalgamated charges.
Separately, the Law Society of Singapore has called for Lim to be struck off the rolls
