SINGAPORE, Dec 27 — After several delays spanning four months, the trial of lawyer and opposition party leader Lim Tean on three charges under the Legal Profession Act finally got under way today.Lim’s trial was most recently scheduled to begin on Dec 11 but was adjourned after he came down with a case of gastroenteritis.

Before that, it was adjourned once so that he could seek new legal counsel and another time was because he was said to be helping a presidential candidate with his campaign. Lim is leader of Peoples Voice opposition political party.

Today, the 59-year-old pleaded not guilty to three charges of acting as a lawyer without a valid practising certificate.

Before the trial proper could begin, his former defence counsel Foo Ho Chew appeared in court to ask the judge to discharge him as Lim’s legal representative.

The application was granted by Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun.

Lim’s new counsel Patrick Fernandez told the judge that even though he just came on board late yesterday, he would not be seeking another adjournment to take instructions from his client.

In his opening statement, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Edwin Soh said that this is a straightforward case where Lim acted as an advocate and solicitor while he did not have a valid practising certificate in force.

"Between April 1 and June 9, 2021, the accused sued out of a writ on behalf of a client, attended court hearings and prepared court documents on 32 occasions while as an unauthorised person, defined by the Legal Profession Act, who did not have a valid practising certificate,” he added.

DPP Soh also said that the evidence to be presented would be clear and undisputed since every lawyer must obtain a practising certificate for a practice year, which begins on April 1 and lasts till March 31.

Despite being issued the certificate only on June 10, 2021, Lim had nevertheless done various legal acts as a solicitor between April 1 and June 9 that year.

WhatsApp messages

The first prosecution witness was Rejni Raman, who was the assistant director at the compliance department of the Law Society of Singapore at the time of Lim’s purported offending.

Rejni said that there were several key conditions that legal practitioners were required to fulfil when renewing their practising certificate.

These included the lawyer’s continuing professional development points, an auditor’s report from the law firm where they worked, and professional indemnity insurance.

An applicant who did not have professional indemnity insurance would not be able to apply for the practising certificate, she added.

Rejni said that this is because payment needs to be approved by the Law Society of Singapore’s professional insurer Lockton, before the application form would be made available for the applicant on the e-litigation platform.

Legal practitioners would then be required to submit their application before the soft deadline on March 31 or the hard deadline on April 1.

Rejni said that she only found out about Lim not having a valid practising certificate "on or around May 11, 2021”.

This was when she saw an email exchange between Lim and an accounts executive from Lockton about professional indemnity insurance.

DPP Soh then asked her to elaborate on a WhatsApp message that she sent Lim on March 31 on whether a lawyer could attend court without a practising certificate.

"He sent me the message on March 31 and said that he already applied for a continuing professional development waiver and since they would get back to him in a few days, it would give him ample time to apply for the certificate and get it approved,” she said.

"I also told him to let the judge know that he was waiting for his waiver and did not have a practising certificate so as to have all the facts before the court.”

DPP Soh asked why she had been communicating with Lim via WhatsApp.

"Because he needed to get his things in order for his application. At no point was I authorising him to practise without a practising licence,” Rejni responded.

During cross-examination of Rejini, Fernandez asked if she agreed that being in the compliance department, it was "very odd” to be advising lawyers to attend court without a practising certificate.

However, she emphasised that her advice was for lawyers without a practising certificate to give full disclosure to the court, and to let the court decide what to do.

"I was not deciding what to do. The Law Society does not have the authority, and if you read the WhatsApp message in its entirety, one would expect a lawyer of 30 years seniority to know this — it is the legal practitioner’s responsibility to do so.”

Shortly before the end of the day’s hearing, Mr Fernandez told the judge that the defence may make a "no case to answer” application after the prosecution closes its case, but will update the court later.

This is a submission made by the defence to seek an acquittal on the basis that they believe that the prosecution has insufficient evidence to support its case.

Lim’s trial is set to continue tomorrow. — TODAY