• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Susan Lim case: Court slashes SMC's cost claims

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
It awards council only $317,000 of the $1.33m it claimed from surgeon

TWO years back, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) had found surgeon Susan Lim guilty of overcharging. In an ironic twist, the High Court ruled that the legal bills sought by SMC from Dr Lim were themselves inflated, and slashed them from $1.33 million to $317,000.

The bills claimed were for work done by the council's lawyers and other costs related to two disciplinary committees brought against Dr Lim, as well as her appeal to the Court of Three Judges.

Dr Lim, 59, had been probed by the committees for overcharging a member of the Brunei royal family for medical treatment.

In 2012, she was found guilty of professional misconduct, suspended for three years, censured and fined $10,000 by the SMC. Her appeal to the Court of Three Judges was dismissed last year.

The legal bills claimed by SMC were examined and argued over two days in July before High Court Assistant Registrar Jacqueline Lee, who issued her decision grounds last month.

SMC had sought some $900,000 for work done by its lawyers at the two disciplinary committee hearings led by Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo and lawyers Melanie Ho and Lim Wei Lee respectively.

Assistant Registrar Lee was not convinced by the evidence and reduced the sum to $180,000. She also cut the $150,000 legal bill sought by SMC against Dr Lim for the appeal hearing to $70,000.

The court also disagreed with the sums sought by SMC for the legal assessors hired to advise it on points of law for the two committees. It ruled that Dr Lim should pay SMC only $22,000 of the $235,000 invoiced by the assessor for the second committee.

The legal assessor for the first committee had billed $49,200, which the court pared to $45,000.

Separately, the bills for two expert witnesses set at some $52,000 were also slashed to $14,000. Ring binders for which SMC had priced at $6 per unit for Dr Lim to pay were cut to $2.50 per unit after the court found it had used the cheaper version in past hearings.

Among other things, Dr Lim's lawyer, Mr Paul Tan, had objected to the $900,000 bill for the lawyers, pointing out there was provision to pay only one lawyer, and not two.

But lawyer Melanie Ho countered for SMC that the costs claimed was for one lawyer only at each stage of the inquiry. For instance, Senior Counsel Yeo presented the opening statement and preliminary arguments in the first hearing, while Ms Ho led evidence in the prosecution's case.

But Assistant Registrar Lee ruled "that such an interpretation of costs of one counsel/ solicitor cannot be allowed", as SMC had not been given permission by the disciplinary committee to claim fees for more than one lawyer.

She also viewed with "great circumspection" the claims by SMC's lawyers that some 1,900 hours and $1.229 million in total time cost was incurred for the disciplinary committee hearings.

SMC, which is understood to be appealing against the decision, declined comment when contacted yesterday.
 

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
And THEY accused Susan Lim of overcharging?
The ironies of life.
Or is this retribution in disguise?
 

krafty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
i started a thread on this before, the husband has reacted in a way that shows the lawyers have overcharged them, trying to find it but to no avail.
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
throw the Business Act Law to the lawyer office. End of day is a business and trading. Case over it become normal business for work done for payment. Fraudulent misrepresentation of payment/ invoices is a criminal charge. See them in court soon, free service provided by government.

Complaint to the Law Society and IRS to check their claim on GST payable.



i started a thread on this before, the husband has reacted in a way that shows the lawyers have overcharged them, trying to find it but to no avail.
 

bhoven

Alfrescian
Loyal
i started a thread on this before, the husband has reacted in a way that shows the lawyers have overcharged them, trying to find it but to no avail.

Karma indeed but seriously at the end of the day there are both greedy doctors and greedy lawyers.....professional ethics and code of conduct are for show only....problem is that this inclination is seeping into all cracks of Singapore society.
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
And THEY accused Susan Lim of overcharging?
The ironies of life.
Or is this retribution in disguise?

the SMC must be the dumbest fuck organization in Singapore next to the PAP. They should have a behind the scene quiet meeting with Susan Lim and ask her to pay the bill, if she does not, suspend her license for 2 years. It will cost her a lot more in lost income. After all the earlier court already found her guilty of overcharging. There is enough grounds for suspending her.
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/07/lawyer-a-pap-mp-accused-of-overcharging/

[h=2]Lawyer – a PAP MP – accused of overcharging[/h]<!-- BEGIN .article-controls --> July 03
12:242014

Print This Article
by Andrew Loh 0 Comments


<!-- END .article-controls -->
<!-- BEGIN .shortcode-content -->
The husband of surgeon Susan Lim has launched a court action for a judicial review of a Law Society committee’s decision on two lawyers overcharging his wife.
The court action is the latest twist in the case brought against Dr Lim by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) in 2012.

The SMC had charged Dr Lim for overcharging her client, a member of the Bruneian royal family, for cancer treatment.

Dr Lim was found guilty of 94 charges of professional misconduct. After she failed in her appeal to overturn the SMC’s decision, she was given a three-year suspension and a S$10,000 fine.
Dr Lim had mounted a legal challenge to the SMC hearings unsuccessfully in the courts, and was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the SMC, who was represented by lawyers Alvin Yeo and Melanie Ho of Wong Partnership.
Mr Yeo, who is a Member of Parliament for Choa Chu Kang GRC, is also a Senior Partner with the law firm.

The legal bill from Wong Partnership which Dr Lim was asked to pay was S$1,007,009.37.

Dr Lim disputed this and a taxation hearing in the courts was convened.

Such hearings take place when the legal costs being claimed by the winning party in a case is being disputed.
The bill was subsequently reduced to S$340,000 by the taxation registrar.

Mr Yeo and Ms Ho applied to review this decision.

High Court Judge Justice Woo Bih Li, who reviewed the matter, eventually allowed a total sum of $370,000 as costs.
This was substantially lower than the S$1,007,009.37 originally claimed by the Wong Partnership lawyers.
Mr Deepak Sharma, the husband of Dr Lim and who is also funding her case, then complained to the Law Society that his wife had been overcharged by the lawyers, accusing them of “gross overcharging” and “improper conduct”.
The Law Society convened a review committee to look into the complaint – and subsequently dismissed Mr Sharma’s complaint against Mr Yeo, saying that his case was “lacking in substance”.
Yeo

The committee based its decision on Wong Partnership’s argument that “Mr Yeo was not involved in the preparation of the bills, and that there was therefore no misconduct on his part”, according to news reports.
The committee, however, referred part of Mr Sharma’s complaint against Ms Ho to an inquiry committee for further investigation. This is believed to be the amount claimed from Dr Lim, which exceeded the amount billed to the SMC.
Now, Mr Sharma is asking the court to conduct a judicial review over the decision by the Law Society review committee’s decision to dismiss his complaints of alleged professional misconduct on the part of the Wong Partnership lawyers.
Mr Sharma says that, in one of their bills, they had charged some $77,102 for each day they were in court. In another bill, it was $46,729 for each day in court.
And a third bill claimed that the lawyers’ charges amounted to $100,000 per hour of hearing.
“I believe that the actions by the lawyers in grossly overcharging my wife by $637,009 (the difference between the original bill amount of $1.007 million and the $370,000 allowed by Justice Woo) are dishonourable and constitute grossly improper conduct,” Mr Sharma said in his papers submitted to the court.

This is believed to be the first time that an application has been made for a judicial review of a review committee’s decision.

Mr Sharma said he had sought legal representation from lawyers in Singapore to be his counsel in the judicial review case. However, he says he has been turned down “by all of the over 20 Singapore Senior Counsels” he has approached to represent him.

“All of the law firms and counsel that I have contacted have declined to act for me or even render me a formal legal opinion,” he said in court documents.

“I would add that none of the law firms or Senior Counsel contacted declined on the basis that my case was unmerited,” he explained.

He is thus applying for the admission of a prominent Queen’s Counsel (QC) from the United Kingdom, Michael Fordham, to fight his case.

Singapore law allows the admission of QCs to appear in court on an ad-hoc basis.

According to the Business Times (BT), Mr Fordham is with Blackstone Chambers in the UK, and is known for the Judicial Review Handbook he authored.

“He has been described by legal rankings publication Chambers as a leading silk in five categories; in December 2013, he was ranked as one of Chambers UK’s Top Silk Bar 100, in their inaugural listing of the top barristers practising at the Bar of England & Wales,” the BT said.

Overcharging is considered “professional misconduct”, and there are various penalties which could be meted out.

In past cases lawyers who were found guilty of overcharging have been fined, have had their licences to practice suspended, or were disbarred.
For example, in 2012, two lawyers who face disciplinary action for overcharging were suspended for three months each.

They were found to have “grossly inflated the bills” they claimed from their clients “to about $566,000 when a court-based assessment showed that the amount should have been $170,000.” (See here.)
In 2010, the Supreme Court Annual Report disclosed that 6 lawyers were disbarred for overcharging or pocketing clients’ money that year.
 

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Yet but another True Greed story about the MIWs.
Truly, it's in the DNA of anyone who wishes to become a PAP MP.
 
Top