Sammyboy RSS Feed
26-10-2014, 10:30 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Lawyer fee slashed not considered overcharging but doctor fee slashed is
I refer to the 16 Oct 2014 Straits Times letter “Don’t equate reduction of costs with overcharging” by the Singapore Law Society.
The Singapore Law Society added ink to the recent saga of overcharging by SMC lawyers without necessarily shedding light to the issue.
While the Law Society deems it the winning lawyer’s duty to charge as much as possible, it also says that it doesn’t condone overcharging. Putting the two statements together, the Law Society’s position must be that the winning lawyer has a duty to charge as much as possible without overcharging.
But what constitutes overcharging? That is the crux of the issue. Did SMC lawyers overcharge? Ironically, throughout its letter, the Law Society makes no mention whatsoever of that most crucial point – what constitutes overcharging. In other words, it’s still possible that while SMC lawyers conformed to the Law Society’s creed of charging as much as possible, it still erred in having overcharged Dr Susan Lim.
SMC lawyers charged $1.33 million at first. Going by the Law Society’s logic, $1.33 million must have been as much as SMC lawyers should dutifully charge. But whether $1.33 million also amounts to overcharging is not clear from the Law Society’s explanation.
The $1.33 million was 400% of the $317,000 SMC lawyer fees were eventually slashed to. Is the Law Society of the opinion that charging 400% of what the judge allowed constitutes overcharging or does not constitute overcharging? One shudders to think that the Law Society might consider 400% as not overcharging. In that case how high must lawyer fees go before the Law Society would deem them as overcharging? 4,000%? 4 million%? Where is the boundary to the Law Society’s greed?
If the Law Society doesn’t equate the slashing of SMC lawyer fees as being a case of overcharging, surely the Law Society will also agree that the slashing of Dr Susan Lim’s fees also did not constitute overcharging? Or is the Law Society going to use one set of rules for lawyers and another set of rules for everyone else?
So in the end, having said so much, the Law Society still did not explain why even though both had their fees slashed down, Dr Susan Lim was punished while SMC lawyers got away scot free.
http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/...ee-slashed-is/ (http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/lawyer-fee-slashed-not-considered-overcharging-but-doctor-fee-slashed-is/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?192737-Dr-Susan-Lim-was-punished-while-SMC-lawyers-got-away-scot-free&goto=newpost).
Lawyer fee slashed not considered overcharging but doctor fee slashed is
I refer to the 16 Oct 2014 Straits Times letter “Don’t equate reduction of costs with overcharging” by the Singapore Law Society.
The Singapore Law Society added ink to the recent saga of overcharging by SMC lawyers without necessarily shedding light to the issue.
While the Law Society deems it the winning lawyer’s duty to charge as much as possible, it also says that it doesn’t condone overcharging. Putting the two statements together, the Law Society’s position must be that the winning lawyer has a duty to charge as much as possible without overcharging.
But what constitutes overcharging? That is the crux of the issue. Did SMC lawyers overcharge? Ironically, throughout its letter, the Law Society makes no mention whatsoever of that most crucial point – what constitutes overcharging. In other words, it’s still possible that while SMC lawyers conformed to the Law Society’s creed of charging as much as possible, it still erred in having overcharged Dr Susan Lim.
SMC lawyers charged $1.33 million at first. Going by the Law Society’s logic, $1.33 million must have been as much as SMC lawyers should dutifully charge. But whether $1.33 million also amounts to overcharging is not clear from the Law Society’s explanation.
The $1.33 million was 400% of the $317,000 SMC lawyer fees were eventually slashed to. Is the Law Society of the opinion that charging 400% of what the judge allowed constitutes overcharging or does not constitute overcharging? One shudders to think that the Law Society might consider 400% as not overcharging. In that case how high must lawyer fees go before the Law Society would deem them as overcharging? 4,000%? 4 million%? Where is the boundary to the Law Society’s greed?
If the Law Society doesn’t equate the slashing of SMC lawyer fees as being a case of overcharging, surely the Law Society will also agree that the slashing of Dr Susan Lim’s fees also did not constitute overcharging? Or is the Law Society going to use one set of rules for lawyers and another set of rules for everyone else?
So in the end, having said so much, the Law Society still did not explain why even though both had their fees slashed down, Dr Susan Lim was punished while SMC lawyers got away scot free.
http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/...ee-slashed-is/ (http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/lawyer-fee-slashed-not-considered-overcharging-but-doctor-fee-slashed-is/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?192737-Dr-Susan-Lim-was-punished-while-SMC-lawyers-got-away-scot-free&goto=newpost).