Steven John Lam Kuet Keng had given two false statements to the police, claiming that somebody else was at the wheel at the time of the accident.
Lawyer Steven John Lam Kuet Keng was struck off the rolls on July 9 for lying to the police in 2024 after he crashed his car while driving under the influence of alcohol.
Lam had given two false statements to the police, claiming that somebody else was at the wheel at the time.
In November 2025, he was sentenced to eight weeks’ jail and a fine of $18,000 after he pleaded guilty to two counts of giving false information to a public servant, one count of drink driving and one count of careless driving.
He was also disqualified from driving for six years.
The Law Society of Singapore then started disciplinary proceedings against Lam, as it was required to do so under the Legal Profession Act when lawyers have been convicted of offences involving dishonesty.
The case was heard on July 9 before the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, which has the power to suspend or disbar errant lawyers.
Lam was called to the Bar in 1996 but is currently not holding a practising certificate.
At the time of his offences, he was a director at Templars Law, a firm he co-founded.
The Law Society, represented by William Ong, submitted that the presumptive sanction of striking off should apply to protect the public and uphold confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
Ong added that while the society recognised Lam’s long record of public service, it was of little relevance in this case.
Lam’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah, said his client had made a grave error of judgment and was very sorry for what he had done.
The senior counsel also urged the court to consider Lam’s volunteer work, which included running legal clinics.
The court – comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Ang Cheng Hock and Justice Hri Kumar Nair – said there were no grounds for departing from the presumptive penalty, and ordered Lam to be struck off the rolls.
However, the judges acknowledged that Lam had not sought to avoid the “catastrophic consequences” of his error and that he had unreservedly apologised for diminishing the reputation of the profession.
The judges also noted Lam’s record of public service contributions.
These will be borne in mind if and when Lam applies to be reinstated as a lawyer in the future, subject to meeting any other considerations, they said.
