-
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.
Why Alvin Yeo MUST resign over that overcharged bill
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
Woody Woodpecker's wife not interested in commenting on pea.
Re: The pap cec must make a stand on mp alvin yeo's misconduct as a lawyer
Pursuant to Section 120 of Legal Profession Act, Sinkie Medi-cock Kongsi can apply by way of originating summons for Alvin the Greedy Apprentice's legal fees to be assessed oops I mean "taxed" (I love these English stiff upper lip types, ever reluctant to call a spade a spade).
Now, the Medi-cock Kongsi is not a private entity, can suka suka decide what it wants to or does not want to do. Alvin the Greedy Apprentice's bill is being funded from members' contributions and Medi-cock Kongsi owes a duty to these members to ensure that the money is properly used. If Medi-cock Kongsi sit on their hands and refuses to do any thing, a member (a heartland doctor with a social conscience and running a small clinic in Aljunied perhaps) can sue them! Wah, this is gettting more and more fun!
Order 59, rule 28 of the Rules of Sinkie Kangaroos (click "current SL" under "Supreme Court of Judicature Act" and go to "Rules of Court" in the Statutes Online website), it is provided as follows:
Costs payable to solicitor by his own client (O. 59, r. 28)
28.
—(1) This Rule applies to every taxation of a solicitor’s bill of costs to his own client.
(2) On a taxation to which this Rule applies, costs shall be taxed on the indemnity basis but shall be presumed —
(a) to have been reasonably incurred if they were incurred with the express or implied approval of the client;
(b) to have been reasonable in amount if their amount was, expressly or impliedly, approved by the client; and
(c) to have been unreasonably incurred if, in the circumstances of the case, they are of an unusual nature unless the solicitor satisfies the Registrar that prior to their being incurred he informed his client that they might not be allowed on a taxation of costs inter partes.
Those who think I am in any way related to the white haired monkey whose photo is used as my avatar need to have their heads examined at IMH! Thank you for your attention.
Retirement in Ang Moh Land is so damn boring, I have to come to Sammyboy to get my kicks ... sometimes.
Pursuant to Section 120 of Legal Profession Act, Sinkie Medi-cock Kongsi can apply by way of originating summons for Alvin the Greedy Apprentice's legal fees to be assessed oops I mean "taxed" (I love these English stiff upper lip types, ever reluctant to call a spade a spade).
Now, the Medi-cock Kongsi is not a private entity, can suka suka decide what it wants to or does not want to do. Alvin the Greedy Apprentice's bill is being funded from members' contributions and Medi-cock Kongsi owes a duty to these members to ensure that the money is properly used. If Medi-cock Kongsi sit on their hands and refuses to do any thing, a member (a heartland doctor with a social conscience and running a small clinic in Aljunied perhaps) can sue them! Wah, this is gettting more and more fun!
Order 59, rule 28 of the Rules of Sinkie Kangaroos (click "current SL" under "Supreme Court of Judicature Act" and go to "Rules of Court" in the Statutes Online website), it is provided as follows:
Costs payable to solicitor by his own client (O. 59, r. 28)
28.
—(1) This Rule applies to every taxation of a solicitor’s bill of costs to his own client.
(2) On a taxation to which this Rule applies, costs shall be taxed on the indemnity basis but shall be presumed —
(a) to have been reasonably incurred if they were incurred with the express or implied approval of the client;
(b) to have been reasonable in amount if their amount was, expressly or impliedly, approved by the client; and
(c) to have been unreasonably incurred if, in the circumstances of the case, they are of an unusual nature unless the solicitor satisfies the Registrar that prior to their being incurred he informed his client that they might not be allowed on a taxation of costs inter partes.
Those who think I am in any way related to the white haired monkey whose photo is used as my avatar need to have their heads examined at IMH! Thank you for your attention.
Retirement in Ang Moh Land is so damn boring, I have to come to Sammyboy to get my kicks ... sometimes.
Re: The pap cec must make a stand on mp alvin yeo's misconduct as a lawyer
PAP's twisted logic. It is like they justified paying minister million dollars because these are supposedly the 'cream of the crop'. Yet, when they are found to be no better, most of them are worst, than the peers elsewhere, the high pay remains.
PAP's twisted logic. It is like they justified paying minister million dollars because these are supposedly the 'cream of the crop'. Yet, when they are found to be no better, most of them are worst, than the peers elsewhere, the high pay remains.
Re: The pap cec must make a stand on mp alvin yeo's misconduct as a lawyer
What they are saying is that it's okay to overcharge - so long as the client who appointed them is NOT paying.
Medical costs are going to increase because the doctors know that their patients are not paying - their insurance companies are.
And of course, Sinkies don't know that ultimately, THEY are paying for it.
What they are saying is that it's okay to overcharge - so long as the client who appointed them is NOT paying.
Medical costs are going to increase because the doctors know that their patients are not paying - their insurance companies are.
And of course, Sinkies don't know that ultimately, THEY are paying for it.
Re: The pap cec must make a stand on mp alvin yeo's misconduct as a lawyer
costs with taxation is a law that must be changed.
it allows for one to sue someone else with no real basis, knowing full well that the defendent is going to lose money anyway in lawyers fees.... even when awarded "costs"
costs with taxation is a law that must be changed.
it allows for one to sue someone else with no real basis, knowing full well that the defendent is going to lose money anyway in lawyers fees.... even when awarded "costs"
Re: The pap cec must make a stand on mp alvin yeo's misconduct as a lawyer
SMC should be made to pay damages as well as it approved those excessive charges.
SMC should be made to pay damages as well as it approved those excessive charges.
Over-charging over over-charging Part 3 (Alvin, say something leh!)
I have got to say I found the Law Society’s letter to the ST Forum Page, Don’t equate reduction of costs with over-charging, pretty annoying.
It starts by talking about how “much ink has been spilled following recent claims of overcharging by lawyers representing the Singapore Medical Council’’. I wouldn’t call a grand total of two letters “much ink’’. I guess my definition of “much’’ isn’t quite the same as the Law Society’s.
It goes on to say: “Without commenting on specific cases before the court and the inquiry committee, it appears necessary to explain the process to the public.’’
(Thank you very much but could you drop the condescending tone? In any case, I don’t think the explanation was very full.)
It then explains the “taxation’’ process. In a nutshell, a lawyer charges a sum of money to a client. Say, he wins the case for his client, then his bill goes to the loser, who can challenge it.
“The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client.’’
I am not sure what that means. I guess it is something like this:
http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/over-charging-over-over-charging-part-3/
I have got to say I found the Law Society’s letter to the ST Forum Page, Don’t equate reduction of costs with over-charging, pretty annoying.
It starts by talking about how “much ink has been spilled following recent claims of overcharging by lawyers representing the Singapore Medical Council’’. I wouldn’t call a grand total of two letters “much ink’’. I guess my definition of “much’’ isn’t quite the same as the Law Society’s.
It goes on to say: “Without commenting on specific cases before the court and the inquiry committee, it appears necessary to explain the process to the public.’’
(Thank you very much but could you drop the condescending tone? In any case, I don’t think the explanation was very full.)
It then explains the “taxation’’ process. In a nutshell, a lawyer charges a sum of money to a client. Say, he wins the case for his client, then his bill goes to the loser, who can challenge it.
“The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client.’’
I am not sure what that means. I guess it is something like this:
http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/over-charging-over-over-charging-part-3/
Re: Over-charging over over-charging Part 3 (Alvin, say something leh!)
Which Alvin you calling? Alvin from Alvin And The Chipmunks? :p
Which Alvin you calling? Alvin from Alvin And The Chipmunks? :p
Re: Over-charging over over-charging Part 3 (Alvin, say something leh!)
For most lawyers I would not like to have to be in a position where I have no choice but to trust them.
For most lawyers I would not like to have to be in a position where I have no choice but to trust them.
Re: Over-charging over over-charging Part 3 (Alvin, say something leh!)
The tone of the law society's reply is essentially that it is glorious to be greedy and rich and that the victor in legal suits deserves all the spoils he dares to make claims to whilst the loser's only hope is that the courts will judge fairly. My respect goes to the Asst Registrar who presided over the taxation. She may well be kissing goodbye to a future rewarding career in the private legal sector with her objective decision but she lives true to justice for all creed. We sorely need more of such people in our public sectorand not the polonious and guidenstern types who now so crowd our corridors of power and who are the elites in society.
If it was the opposition tat did such a thing...the pap will hound n condemn them till Kingdom come...but if its pap members. .its ok. Pap can do no wrong.
Re: Over-charging over over-charging Part 3 (Alvin, say something leh!)
“The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client.’’
even so, is it reasonable for Alvin to charge $100,000 per hour? even in the US, top attorneys are asking for about USD 1000+ per hour.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704071304576160362028728234
what a load of crap from the law soc.
“The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client.’’
even so, is it reasonable for Alvin to charge $100,000 per hour? even in the US, top attorneys are asking for about USD 1000+ per hour.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704071304576160362028728234
what a load of crap from the law soc.
Re: Over-charging over over-charging Part 3 (Alvin, say something leh!)
like that everyone losing party who has to pay costs should query ........ FOOking FOOked up law
like that everyone losing party who has to pay costs should query ........ FOOking FOOked up law
Alvin Yeo & team claimed for 1,900 hours for only 718 hours spent!
CLAIM NO. 1 LEGAL FEES
$900,000
The amount the SMC claimed as payment to law firm WongPartnership on behalf of lawyers Alvin Yeo, Melanie Ho and Lim Wei Lee
CUT TO $180,000
The judgment: A doctor found guilty in an SMC disciplinary hearing can only be charged for the services of one lawyer - unless the proceedings are so complex they call for another lawyer who must be certified by SMC's disciplinary committee.
This certification was not done in this case.
Assistant Registrar Jacqueline Lee decided what was claimed for both Ms Melanie Ho and Ms Lim Wei Lee should not be allowed, and the $514,000 claimed for Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo's work was too high.
The SMC had originally presented a bill of $1,229,804 for 1,900 hours spent by its lawyers on the case, claiming "out of abundance of caution, the amount stated is a reduced figure of the time spent". The Law Society also has verified that the SMC paid a higher amount to WongPartnership than it is claiming from Dr Lim.
Ms Lee said that SMC's statement meant little since she had no information on how much time had actually been spent, and criticised the council for not detailing what the lawyers had spent their time on.
She also pointed out that "collectively, Mr Yeo, Ms Ho and Ms Lim allegedly spent 718 hours" - much less than the 1,900 hours claimed for.
Ms Lee added that if the 1,900 hours included two replacement lawyers catching up on what had happened before they joined the team, "it would be unreasonable to make the respondent (Dr Lim) bear the costs arising from any such inefficiency in the conduct of the prosecution".
CLAIM NO. 1 LEGAL FEES
$900,000
The amount the SMC claimed as payment to law firm WongPartnership on behalf of lawyers Alvin Yeo, Melanie Ho and Lim Wei Lee
CUT TO $180,000
The judgment: A doctor found guilty in an SMC disciplinary hearing can only be charged for the services of one lawyer - unless the proceedings are so complex they call for another lawyer who must be certified by SMC's disciplinary committee.
This certification was not done in this case.
Assistant Registrar Jacqueline Lee decided what was claimed for both Ms Melanie Ho and Ms Lim Wei Lee should not be allowed, and the $514,000 claimed for Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo's work was too high.
The SMC had originally presented a bill of $1,229,804 for 1,900 hours spent by its lawyers on the case, claiming "out of abundance of caution, the amount stated is a reduced figure of the time spent". The Law Society also has verified that the SMC paid a higher amount to WongPartnership than it is claiming from Dr Lim.
Ms Lee said that SMC's statement meant little since she had no information on how much time had actually been spent, and criticised the council for not detailing what the lawyers had spent their time on.
She also pointed out that "collectively, Mr Yeo, Ms Ho and Ms Lim allegedly spent 718 hours" - much less than the 1,900 hours claimed for.
Ms Lee added that if the 1,900 hours included two replacement lawyers catching up on what had happened before they joined the team, "it would be unreasonable to make the respondent (Dr Lim) bear the costs arising from any such inefficiency in the conduct of the prosecution".
Last edited:
Re: Alvin Yeo & team claimed for 1,900 hours for only 718 hours spent!
LHL shld teach tis Law Firm Arithmetics.
LHL shld teach tis Law Firm Arithmetics.
Re: Alvin Yeo & team claimed for 1,900 hours for only 718 hours spent!
Ethics also me thinks
Ethics also me thinks
Similar threads
