Sammyboy RSS Feed
17-10-2014, 10:30 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
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/20...arging-part-3/ (http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/over-charging-over-over-charging-part-3/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?192218-Over-charging-over-over-charging-Part-3-(Alvin-say-something-leh!)&goto=newpost).
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/20...arging-part-3/ (http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/over-charging-over-over-charging-part-3/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?192218-Over-charging-over-over-charging-Part-3-(Alvin-say-something-leh!)&goto=newpost).