http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,208133,00.html?
LAWYERS SAY:
More representing themselves in court
By Crystal Chan
July 19, 2009
--TNP ILLUSTRATION: FADZIL HAMZAH
MORE people are choosing to represent themselves in court - often with little success, though.
Three prisoners now defending themselves against charges of assaulting their former cellmate are the latest in a trend of DIY defendants.
In February, pet owner Pheabe Chau won $2,500 from Ericsson Pet Farm after it sold her a sick dog that died eight days after the purchase.
Criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan observed: 'A few years ago, for every 10 accused persons, only one would defend himself. Now, it's two to three for every 10 accused persons.'
The same trend is happening in the United States. (See other report).
Lawyer Nicholas Cheong told The New Paper that the most common reason people choose to represent themselves is to save on legal fees.
He noted that people who represent themselves in court are usually those fighting divorce and private summons cases.
Madam Michelle Lee, 40, an accounts clerk earning $1,800 a month, represented herself in her divorce in 2006. She argued successfully for her ex-husband to pay her maintenance.
She said: 'Hiring a lawyer was out of the question. I couldn't afford the fees and I didn't qualify for legal aid. And I believed the court would take my side because I have two children to support.'
Successful case
A well-known case of a woman representing herself in a divorce - and winning - is that of Englishwoman Jane Rebecca Ong.
In 1996, she took on two of Singapore's legal titans, Senior Counsels Harry Elias and Tan Tok Quan, and won her case against her estranged husband, Mr Ong Siauw Tjoan.
Ms Ong successfully argued that she was entitled to part of her late father-in-law's estate, which was worth millions.
Mr Cheong explained: 'Divorces and private summons are personal matters so it is not difficult to represent yourself because you know the details of what happened.
'That makes it easy for, say, a wife to argue for maintenance or custody, because she would know her own financial situation as well as how much her husband makes.'
Mr Subhas said some defendants believe they can do a better job than lawyers.
Assistant Professor Eugene Tan, who teaches law at the Singapore Management University, said: 'Such litigants may feel that lawyers can't pursue a line of questioning or approach a case in a manner they're comfortable with. In short, these people feel that self-help is the best way forward.'
One example was Tan Chor Jin, the 'One-eyed Dragon' who was hanged in January for fatally shooting nightclub owner Lim Hock Soon in 2006.
He discharged his lawyer and chose to defend himself at his trial in 2007. For his appeal, however, Tan hired Mr Subhas.
Mr Subhas said, explaining why Tan discharged his first lawyer: 'Some clients insist that they want to put forward a certain argument for their defence but it's not feasible and if we bring it up in court, the judge won't accept it.'
For those who cannot afford a lawyer, the Law Society has a criminal legal aid scheme, which is given to those who pass the means test.
Criteria for legal aid
To qualify, single applicants must have a monthly income of less than $1,300, while married applicants must have a combined monthly income of less than $1,700.
The Legal Aid Bureau also provides lawyers for free in civil and marital cases - if you earn less than $10,000 a year.
The state will assign a lawyer to those facing capital punishment, if they don't get one on their own, said Mr Cheong.
But most of them do hire lawyers, said Mr Subhas. 'Those accused of capital offences usually don't want to take the risk (of representing themselves).
'You don't know what can happen. Sometimes, during cross-examination, the answers the other person gives could get you into more trouble.'
Even lawyers rarely choose to represent themselves when they are involved in a case.
Mr Subhas chose to hire a lawyer to sue Singapore Airlines for compensation over his brother's death in the SQ006 crash in Taipei in 2000.
He explained: 'It's better to let a third party handle the case because you can get carried away or become emotional as you're personally involved.
'Besides, the proceedings involved aviation law and it was something I wasn't familiar with.'
Eventually, SIA reached out-of-court settlements with all the plaintiffs.
Prof Tan agreed that when one argues one's own case, there is the risk of being too involved to argue dispassionately and effectively.
He said: 'Emotions may get the better of the litigant. Whereas if a lawyer handles the case, he or she provides counsel on the next step or line of questioning.'
Distractions
Also, a layman could get tripped by court procedures and having to get things right may distract a litigant from preparing for the case.
Prof Tan is unaware of any significant victories by litigants in person.
But certain cases are so minor that lawyers are unnecessary, said Mr Subhas.
'For example, if you are charged with driving without a licence, you may as well plead guilty and save the legal fees to pay the fine.'
But that does not mean that if you are pleading guilty to an offence, you don't need a lawyer.
He said: 'For more serious offences, the lawyer would be able to bring up all the mitigating factors to get you a lenient sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE US
Self-defendants slow courts down
COURT officials across the United States have noted that more cash-strapped people are representing themselves in court.
And it has led to more inefficiency in the courts because such people are unfamiliar with the procedures, reported The New York Times in April.
Judges complained that people miss deadlines, fail to bring the right documents or evidence, and are simply unprepared for legal proceedings.
Such mistakes make it more likely they will lose the case - no matter the merit of their cases.
Records of New York's family courts show that in the first six weeks of this year, nearly 95 per cent of litigants did not have a lawyer, compared with 88 percent in all of last year.
In California, the number of plaintiffs without a lawyer rose by 22 per cent, while defendants representing themselves rose by 36 per cent.
LAWYERS SAY:
More representing themselves in court
By Crystal Chan
July 19, 2009
--TNP ILLUSTRATION: FADZIL HAMZAH
MORE people are choosing to represent themselves in court - often with little success, though.
Three prisoners now defending themselves against charges of assaulting their former cellmate are the latest in a trend of DIY defendants.
In February, pet owner Pheabe Chau won $2,500 from Ericsson Pet Farm after it sold her a sick dog that died eight days after the purchase.
Criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan observed: 'A few years ago, for every 10 accused persons, only one would defend himself. Now, it's two to three for every 10 accused persons.'
The same trend is happening in the United States. (See other report).
Lawyer Nicholas Cheong told The New Paper that the most common reason people choose to represent themselves is to save on legal fees.
He noted that people who represent themselves in court are usually those fighting divorce and private summons cases.
Madam Michelle Lee, 40, an accounts clerk earning $1,800 a month, represented herself in her divorce in 2006. She argued successfully for her ex-husband to pay her maintenance.
She said: 'Hiring a lawyer was out of the question. I couldn't afford the fees and I didn't qualify for legal aid. And I believed the court would take my side because I have two children to support.'
Successful case
A well-known case of a woman representing herself in a divorce - and winning - is that of Englishwoman Jane Rebecca Ong.
In 1996, she took on two of Singapore's legal titans, Senior Counsels Harry Elias and Tan Tok Quan, and won her case against her estranged husband, Mr Ong Siauw Tjoan.
Ms Ong successfully argued that she was entitled to part of her late father-in-law's estate, which was worth millions.
Mr Cheong explained: 'Divorces and private summons are personal matters so it is not difficult to represent yourself because you know the details of what happened.
'That makes it easy for, say, a wife to argue for maintenance or custody, because she would know her own financial situation as well as how much her husband makes.'
Mr Subhas said some defendants believe they can do a better job than lawyers.
Assistant Professor Eugene Tan, who teaches law at the Singapore Management University, said: 'Such litigants may feel that lawyers can't pursue a line of questioning or approach a case in a manner they're comfortable with. In short, these people feel that self-help is the best way forward.'
One example was Tan Chor Jin, the 'One-eyed Dragon' who was hanged in January for fatally shooting nightclub owner Lim Hock Soon in 2006.
He discharged his lawyer and chose to defend himself at his trial in 2007. For his appeal, however, Tan hired Mr Subhas.
Mr Subhas said, explaining why Tan discharged his first lawyer: 'Some clients insist that they want to put forward a certain argument for their defence but it's not feasible and if we bring it up in court, the judge won't accept it.'
For those who cannot afford a lawyer, the Law Society has a criminal legal aid scheme, which is given to those who pass the means test.
Criteria for legal aid
To qualify, single applicants must have a monthly income of less than $1,300, while married applicants must have a combined monthly income of less than $1,700.
The Legal Aid Bureau also provides lawyers for free in civil and marital cases - if you earn less than $10,000 a year.
The state will assign a lawyer to those facing capital punishment, if they don't get one on their own, said Mr Cheong.
But most of them do hire lawyers, said Mr Subhas. 'Those accused of capital offences usually don't want to take the risk (of representing themselves).
'You don't know what can happen. Sometimes, during cross-examination, the answers the other person gives could get you into more trouble.'
Even lawyers rarely choose to represent themselves when they are involved in a case.
Mr Subhas chose to hire a lawyer to sue Singapore Airlines for compensation over his brother's death in the SQ006 crash in Taipei in 2000.
He explained: 'It's better to let a third party handle the case because you can get carried away or become emotional as you're personally involved.
'Besides, the proceedings involved aviation law and it was something I wasn't familiar with.'
Eventually, SIA reached out-of-court settlements with all the plaintiffs.
Prof Tan agreed that when one argues one's own case, there is the risk of being too involved to argue dispassionately and effectively.
He said: 'Emotions may get the better of the litigant. Whereas if a lawyer handles the case, he or she provides counsel on the next step or line of questioning.'
Distractions
Also, a layman could get tripped by court procedures and having to get things right may distract a litigant from preparing for the case.
Prof Tan is unaware of any significant victories by litigants in person.
But certain cases are so minor that lawyers are unnecessary, said Mr Subhas.
'For example, if you are charged with driving without a licence, you may as well plead guilty and save the legal fees to pay the fine.'
But that does not mean that if you are pleading guilty to an offence, you don't need a lawyer.
He said: 'For more serious offences, the lawyer would be able to bring up all the mitigating factors to get you a lenient sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE US
Self-defendants slow courts down
COURT officials across the United States have noted that more cash-strapped people are representing themselves in court.
And it has led to more inefficiency in the courts because such people are unfamiliar with the procedures, reported The New York Times in April.
Judges complained that people miss deadlines, fail to bring the right documents or evidence, and are simply unprepared for legal proceedings.
Such mistakes make it more likely they will lose the case - no matter the merit of their cases.
Records of New York's family courts show that in the first six weeks of this year, nearly 95 per cent of litigants did not have a lawyer, compared with 88 percent in all of last year.
In California, the number of plaintiffs without a lawyer rose by 22 per cent, while defendants representing themselves rose by 36 per cent.
