Don't equate reduction of costs with overcharging - Law Soc in Forum letter

[Confuseous]

MUCH ink has been spilt following recent claims of overcharging by lawyers representing the Singapore Medical Council ("Medical, legal professions need to clear the air" by Dr Jeremy Lim Fung Yen, Oct 3; and "Legal profession's unregulated pricing structure" by Mr Philip Williams, last Saturday). Without commenting on specific cases before the court and the inquiry committee, it appears necessary to explain the process to the public.

There are two typical situations - when one reviews one's lawyer's bill, and when one reviews the opponent's lawyer's bill. In Singapore, the general rule is that the losing party has to pay costs to the winning party. Parties can agree on the quantum to be paid, or if they disagree, the court will decide the amount payable after hearing arguments from both sets of lawyers. This is known as taxation.

The winning party's lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court's detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items. The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party.

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. The law actually intends that there will be an appreciable margin between what a losing party pays in taxed costs, and what a winning party has to pay its lawyers. It is an attempt to reach a fair balance between the victor and the vanquished. In practice, most bills of costs submitted for taxation are reduced.

The winning party's lawyers have a duty to seek the highest quantum reasonably arguable, and the losing party's lawyers have a duty to seek the highest possible reduction of those claimed costs. The court will balance both views and decide. That a winning party's bill of costs was reduced on taxation should not automatically be construed as overcharging. Indeed, if a client is dissatisfied with his lawyer's bill, he can also tax that bill in court.

The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.

The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one's own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.

Shawn Toh
Director, Communications The Law Society of Singapore

 

[tanakow]

Going by that explanation , then Susan Lim was not overcharging.

MUCH ink has been spilt following recent claims of overcharging by lawyers representing the Singapore Medical Council ("Medical, legal professions need to clear the air" by Dr Jeremy Lim Fung Yen, Oct 3; and "Legal profession's unregulated pricing structure" by Mr Philip Williams, last Saturday). Without commenting on specific cases before the court and the inquiry committee, it appears necessary to explain the process to the public.

There are two typical situations - when one reviews one's lawyer's bill, and when one reviews the opponent's lawyer's bill. In Singapore, the general rule is that the losing party has to pay costs to the winning party. Parties can agree on the quantum to be paid, or if they disagree, the court will decide the amount payable after hearing arguments from both sets of lawyers. This is known as taxation.

The winning party's lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court's detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items. The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party.

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. The law actually intends that there will be an appreciable margin between what a losing party pays in taxed costs, and what a winning party has to pay its lawyers. It is an attempt to reach a fair balance between the victor and the vanquished. In practice, most bills of costs submitted for taxation are reduced.

The winning party's lawyers have a duty to seek the highest quantum reasonably arguable, and the losing party's lawyers have a duty to seek the highest possible reduction of those claimed costs. The court will balance both views and decide. That a winning party's bill of costs was reduced on taxation should not automatically be construed as overcharging. Indeed, if a client is dissatisfied with his lawyer's bill, he can also tax that bill in court.

The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.

The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one's own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.

Shawn Toh
Director, Communications The Law Society of Singapore

 

[hofmann]

4 legs good, 2 legs baaaaaad...

 

[mojito]

The legal fraternity is indeed a den of thieves. Small wonder why it is the least respected profession.

 

[wendychan]

its a blardy FOOking stupid law that actually favors the losing party



for the winning party, one gets costs...... but not 100%, so still lose $$$$

very easy to say one can challenge it, but how many want to spend more time, effort and $$$ to query blils


FOOk them rich well connected bastards who can use their $$$ to screw with others. may their burn in hell and their descendesnts

 

[tanwahtiu]

A thief try to explain a thief is not a thief.

A closed industry of legal criminal traders charging their customers with obscene demand of payment.

This is the Christian Crusaders style of legal system based on the Bible?

its a blardy FOOking stupid law that actually favors the losing party



for the winning party, one gets costs...... but not 100%, so still lose $$$$

very easy to say one can challenge it, but how many want to spend more time, effort and $$$ to query blils


FOOk them rich well connected bastards who can use their $$$ to screw with others. may their burn in hell and their descendesnts

 

[Confuseous]

A drunkard will deny till his bolls drop that he is not drunk.

 

[Black Swan]

Where is the logic? Anything that is grey can be painted white or black.

 

[laksaboy]

A thief try to explain a thief is not a thief.

A closed industry of legal criminal traders charging their customers with obscene demand of payment.

This is the Christian Crusaders style of legal system based on the Bible?

More like the vindictive and greedy Jewish style. Refer to Shylock and his demand for a pound of flesh.

It may be politically incorrect today, but Shakespeare teaches us valuable lessons, if we would only read between the lines.

 

[enterprise2]

Also do not equate Ministars high salaries to being overpaid!!

 

[mojito]

Not overcharge lah. It is winning firm absorbing the cost increase instead of passing on to the losing side. We are a compassionate society.

 

[Confuseous]

Also do not equate Ministars high salaries to being overpaid!!

Ditto for highly paid civil serpents like the CEOs of IDA, NEA who go missing when things happen.

Speaking of highly paid ministars, Chan Chun Seng has been very very silent on the matter of the turf war between some of his underlings and partners.
Not even a squeak, from the mousey minister. But he always has tons to say on other things.

Same with Teo Ser Fcuk - he has been very fcuking quiet on the whole matter.

 

[Confuseous]

Below are some of the comments posted in TRE in response to the above letter (not in full) from the Law Society.

• downfall of singapore:
October 16, 2014 at 11:52 am (Quote)
these people know now that singapore is in a state of disarray with regards to moral and ethical behaviour so fleece as much a possible before it tanks
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)

• Crooked ppl, crooked logic:
October 16, 2014 at 11:54 am (Quote)
Why no such logic in the medical field? Dr Susan Lim wouldn’t have been found guilty if she can also defended herself by saying, “Medical fees being judged to be lesser than charged doesn’t mean overcharging.”
Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)

• Define "over-charging"...:
October 16, 2014 at 11:58 am (Quote)
If the Law Society claims that Alvin Yeo did not overcharged Susan Lim then can it kindly elaborate on the following:
(1) what did Alvin do if it was not overcharging?
(2) define overcharging (in legal and in layman’s terms)?
(3) isn’t a lawyer ultimately responsible for the bill on his services?
(4) what is different in Alvin’s Yeo case from those cases previously judged by the Law Society as overcharging?
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)

• Confirmed & double confirmed !:
October 16, 2014 at 11:59 am (Quote)
The law is a joke, is a rich man game. Now, it confirmed that it is also manipulated protection of the PAPees Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

• Party Against People:
October 16, 2014 at 12:02 pm (Quote)
The blatant increase in Alvin legal fees is not overcharging makes the rapist claim that he did not rape the victim but had sex. Come off Lembus, speak in clear
English as majority of your clients do not have your legal skills. LS statement is joke of the decade and SDP Chee should highlight in his speech in IBA. Hahaha

More.....http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/...ign=Feed:+MySingaporeNews+(My+Singapore+News)