SINGAPORE – It was the Registrar of the Supreme Court who had information that lawyer Lim Tean was practising law without a valid licence and relayed this to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), the prosecution said on Dec 28.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Edwin Soh told the court this after Lim’s lawyer, Mr Peter Fernandez, had asked in court the day before for the first information report for the case.

Lim is contesting three charges for allegedly contravening the Legal Profession Act.

Having not paid for professional indemnity insurance – a requirement for a practising certificate – for two months, he had allegedly attended court hearings on behalf of his clients on 32 occasions without the certificate between April 1 and June 9, 2021.

On Dec 28, the fifth day of Lim’s trial, DPP Soh said that after the AGC had the information about Lim, it told the police’s Commercial Affairs Division to open investigations into Lim.

Mr Fernandez then asked if the prosecution would produce the correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the AGC.

He said his client believes that the Registrar did not send the information on him to the AGC and that if they did, then other lawyers would be in a similar position as he was.

He also said Lim wondered why he was being singled out for prosecution if others were on the list.

In response, DPP Soh said the prosecution would not disclose the communications as doing so would reveal the internal procedures of the AGC and the police, and would be detrimental to public interest.

He added that it was irrelevant who the complainant is.

DPP Soh said that the AGC has the discretion to decide who it charges based on the evidence before it, and added that the trial is not for other cases but for the charges that Lim faces.

Mr Fernandez said Lim intends to file a criminal motion to the High Court regarding the correspondences.

District Judge Ong Hian Sun told the prosecution to check with the Law Society of Singapore on how many lawyers had practised without a valid practice licence in the same year, given that the issue has arisen during the trial.

DPP Soh said it would do so.

Later, while cross-examining investigating officer Desmond Toh Wei Kang, Mr Fernandez referred to an exchange between Mr Toh and a Law Society member.

Mr Toh had asked the Law Society member about the practising certificate for the practice year of 2021 to 2022 of lawyer M. Ravi, who had worked at Carson Law Chambers with Lim.

The Law Society member had replied that Mr Ravi was working for a different firm from May 21, 2021, and that the society did not know where he worked before that.

In court on Dec 28, Mr Toh said he had asked about Mr Ravi’s certificate as he wanted to know if there were other lawyers in the firm operating without a practising certificate at that time.

Mr Fernandez told the court that according to Lim, Mr Ravi went to court without a practising certificate from April 1 to May 20, 2021, and that his client wondered why Mr Toh did not look into the matter, given the Law Society information.

Mr Toh said he had to keep confidential the manner in which he carried out investigations.

At the end of the proceedings, Mr Fernandez said he would make a “no case to answer” submission, which is made when the defence thinks that there is insufficient evidence to support the prosecution’s case.

The case against Lim has been adjourned to January.

If convicted of practising law without authorisation, Lim can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to $25,000, or both if this is his first offence. For subsequent offences, he can be jailed for up to 12 months and fined up to $50,000 for each charge.