The Singapore Law Gazette

Disciplinary Tribunal Reports

Pursuant to section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.

This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.

---

In the matter of Lim Tean (“Respondent”)

Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”) against the Respondent.
2. The Complainant, a former client of the Respondent, alleged that the Respondent had dishonestly deposited a cheque in the sum of $30,000 into his firm’s office account, being an interim payment of a judgment sum in the Complainant’s personal injury claim (the “Cheque”). This was done notwithstanding that the Respondent allegedly knew he had been discharged as the Complainant’s solicitor and was no longer authorised even to receive the Cheque.
3. Further, it was alleged that the Respondent’s conduct was improper, as the Cheque ought to have been deposited into a client account instead.
4. The following charges (with alternative charges referencing Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA) were preferred against the Respondent:

1^st Charge

For grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act by, without just cause, receiving and/or retaining the Cheque and presenting it for payment despite having been discharged on or about 13 November 2019 as the solicitors for the Complainant.

2^nd Charge

For grossly improper conduct as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b) of the Act by failing to pay the sum of $30,000 received from Willy Tay’s Chambers (solicitors for AXA Insurance Pte Ltd) on or about 13 November 2019 into the firm’s client account, in breach of Rule 3(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (“SAR”).

Findings and Determination of the DT

5. The Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) found that the 1^st and 2^nd Charges were made out on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under Section 83 of the LPA for the referral to the Court of Three Judges.

Findings and Determination of the Court of 3 Judges

6. The matter was heard by the Court of 3 Judges on 23 January 2026.
7. The Court found that due cause was made out on the 2^nd Charge and held that the Respondent had breached Rule 3(1) of the SAR by failing to pay into his firm’s client account the sum $30,000 which he received on behalf of the Complainant.
8. The Court found that the 1^st Charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the DT had erred in its finding by failing to evaluate all relevant evidence holistically, and by dismissing the significance of an alleged meeting on 26 November 2019 between the Respondent and the Complainant, as it was the Respondent’s case that he had not yet been discharged at the material time.
9. In the absence of any dishonesty or deceit on the part of the Respondent, the Court ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty. Having considered that there were no mitigating factors and some aggravating factors that warranted a commensurate fine in relation to a failure to comply with the Legal Profession (Solicitor’s Accounts Rules), the Court imposed a financial penalty of $30,000.00. The Respondent was further ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs fixed at $12,000 plus reasonable disbursements.

The Court’s grounds of decision may be viewed here.

To access the full report, click here.

---

In the matter of Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran (the “Respondent”), Advocate & Solicitor

1. These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent under section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”).

Charges

2. The following charges, referencing Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, for conduct unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession were preferred against the Respondent:

Alternative 1^st Charge

The Respondent had failed to properly supervise one Enoch Nelson A/L Nallarasu who was employed as a paralegal by him or his firm, thereby breaching rule 32 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“PCR”).

Alternative 2^nd Charge

The Respondent had failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the progress of the claim and/or provide timely advice to his client in respect of the claim, thereby breaching rule 5(2)(e) and/or 5(2)(h) of the PCR.

Alternative 3^rd Charge

The Respondent had failed to ensure that the person giving those instructions has the authority to give those instructions on behalf of the client and/or obtain the client’s confirmation of those instructions within a reasonable time after receiving those instructions, thereby breaching rule 5(5) of the PCR.

Alternative 4^th Charge

The Respondent had failed to inform his client of the basis on which fees for professional services will be charged for a claim, and of the manner in which those fees and disbursements are to be paid, thereby breaching rule 17(3)(a) of the PCR.

Alternative 5^th Charge

The Respondent by drawing or deducting, or allowing to be drawn or deducted, a sum of S$2,000.00 from the client account of his firm, for his or his firm’s costs and disbursements without delivering a bill of costs or other written intimation of the amount of the costs incurred, and without notifying the client that the money would be applied towards or in satisfaction of such costs, had breached rule 8(1) read with rule 7(1)(a)(iv) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules.

3. Additionally, the following charges, referencing Section 83(2)(j) of the LPA, for having contravened a provision of the Act in relation thereto which warrants disciplinary action were preferred against the Respondent:

Alternative 6^th Charge

The Respondent had failed to keep proper contemporaneous records of all instructions received and all advice rendered (including copies of the relevant discharge vouchers) in relation to the purported settlement of a claim, thereby breaching rule 5(2)(k) of PCR.

Alternative 7^th Charge

The Respondent had failed to keep proper contemporaneous records of all instructions received and all advice rendered (including copies of the relevant discharge vouchers, if any) in relation to the purported settlement of a claim, thereby breaching rule 5(2)(k) of PCR.

Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions

4. The Respondent admitted to all charges before the DT.
5. Pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the LPA, the DT determined that, while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83(1) of the LPA, the Respondent should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$15,000.00.
6. Pursuant to section 93(2) of the LPA, the DT ordered that the Respondent pay the Law Society costs of S$5,000.00 (inclusive of disbursements).
7. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the LPA, the Council of the Law Society adopted the DT’s findings. The Council ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of S$13,000.00 in respect of the Alternative 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th Charges, and issued a reprimand in respect of the Alternative 4^th Charge.

To access the full report, click here.