- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
May 8, 2010
ERRANT PROPERTY DEALS
Check lawyers first
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Govt steps in to curb errant property agents', and the response by Dr Tan Tee Khoon of Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies ('Estate agents shouldn't work with moneylenders'; Thursday) to Monday's report, 'Realty firms halt lending activities'.
While estate agents appear to be the culprits singled out, should the authorities be more concerned that if lawyers continue to draft such agreements and have these caveats frivolously lodged, the problems will persist?
In the first place, the situation should be such that lawyers decline to work with moneylenders and estate agents when requested to draft such agreements and lodge such caveats.
Are not these lawyers duty-bound to check the validity of their clients' claims instead?
Should not such lawyers have advised their clients accordingly of the principle in Rule 40 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules?
Rule 40 states as follows: 'An advocate and solicitor shall in appropriate cases evaluate with a client whether the consequence of a matter justifies the expense or the risk involved.'
Will we eventually see many negative sales in the property market because of the unnecessary litigation involved in such caveats as many lawyers draft such agreements, generate litigation and lodge caveats?
Tan Chin Aik
ERRANT PROPERTY DEALS
Check lawyers first
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Govt steps in to curb errant property agents', and the response by Dr Tan Tee Khoon of Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies ('Estate agents shouldn't work with moneylenders'; Thursday) to Monday's report, 'Realty firms halt lending activities'.
While estate agents appear to be the culprits singled out, should the authorities be more concerned that if lawyers continue to draft such agreements and have these caveats frivolously lodged, the problems will persist?
In the first place, the situation should be such that lawyers decline to work with moneylenders and estate agents when requested to draft such agreements and lodge such caveats.
Are not these lawyers duty-bound to check the validity of their clients' claims instead?
Should not such lawyers have advised their clients accordingly of the principle in Rule 40 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules?
Rule 40 states as follows: 'An advocate and solicitor shall in appropriate cases evaluate with a client whether the consequence of a matter justifies the expense or the risk involved.'
Will we eventually see many negative sales in the property market because of the unnecessary litigation involved in such caveats as many lawyers draft such agreements, generate litigation and lodge caveats?
Tan Chin Aik
