1/15/2015

The court the new arbiter of legal fees


We have seen what happened to the Dr Susan Lim’s case when the claims for legal fees were slashed by the court on several occasions from millions to a mere $100k or roughly 10% of the original claims. And we have seen the latest in Roy’s case when the claim for $50k or thereabout been sliced to $29l.
 

And all the claims by the lawyers are perfectly legal. So a plaintiff can engage the most expensive lawyer on earth, or in Singapore, and claim against the defendant in a dispute theoretically could be no more than $1000 and claiming hundreds of thousands or millions. A very wealthy person could inflict heavy financial damages against a small guy to bankrupt him by abusing the legal system, theoretically.
 

Over billing is no crime. And the poor judges would have to play the role of a non interested party, impartial, to determine what the court thinks is the right and decent sum. And there is nothing wrong at all on the part of the outrageous claims by a lawyer. No rebuke, no reprimand, no dressing down. It is just a normal legal process. Lawyers can simply bill like Susan Lim case and let the court to do the necessary.
 

Is this how things should work?

24 comments:

Anonymous said...


in Chinese word......

a judge has 2-mouth "官"......

cheers.....

Virgo49 said...

Professional elites can billed whatever amount they like. How to dispute their fees?
Laymen charge extra one cent considered as cheating

Your lives are under their mercy.

You want to save your lifes, you pay

You want to save your skins you pay

Anonymous said...

That is why if u are poor, better bow your head down and keep a low profile cause u can not afford it.

Anonymous said...

ya lor, super talents!

Anonymous said...

"Is this how things should work?"
RB

Yes, things work according to how the elected govt want it to work.

If only WP is ready and hence elected by 60% to be govt, I am sure things will work according to what WP want it to work, tio bo?

Anonymous said...

I say I am worth a million dollar salary.
My friends/cronies agree with me.
And the peasants agree with everything my father tells them.

Anonymous said...

If the daft peasants are driving BMWs, Lexus, Mercedes, why not ?
Now, you want to be daft or "alec smart" ?

Anonymous said...

" If the daft peasants are driving BMWs, Lexus, Mercedes, why not ? "

Sure or not?
I saw your father cleaning toilets.
And your mother collecting old newspapers.
Your sister was in a hotel room.
And your daughter is a webcam entrepreneur.

Anonymous said...

Nobody pointed a gun at the peasants to agree with their father. They agreed on their own free will.

Anonymous said...

Mr Redbean, you got the numbers wrong. It is worse than what you thought.
The plaintiff asked for 50,000 dollars but got 20,000 dollars not 29,000. You cannot count the 9,000 which the judge said are the filing fees presumably accruing to the State.
The 20,000 dollars will be shared by the seven lawyers of Drew and Napier I presume.
I never knew that when you sue someone it is like a fish market can bargain lelong and try your luck hit jackpot. Lucky the judge made the plaintiff a fool by slicing the asking price from 50000 to 20000. Of course the shit times did not mention this. Thank god for internet.

Anonymous said...


Frankly speaking, the $20,000.00
is also not bad lah.

Just do this do that, $20,000.00!

The $20,000.00 is one whole year
salary for some!

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:49, are you a daft peasant that drives a BMW,Lexus or Mercedes or as what Anon 10:55 said, washing toilets?

Matilah_Singapura said...

>> Over billing is no crime

Yes. Because "over-billing"---if there is actually such a thing---lies in the fuzzy area between legitimate charging for services and outright fraud. Damn hard to prove lah...you have to get into peoples' minds to figure out their intentions---which is IMPOSSIBLE!

The best case you can make is that over-billing is UNETHICAL, or perhaps to use a stronger word: IMMORAL. So now you are in the realm of philosophy and philosophers have been arguing for thousands of years on whether ethics and morality can be viewed as "objective" or "universal". Good luck in figuring out an answer ;-)

>> the poor judges would have to play the role of a non interested party, impartial, to determine what the court thinks is the right and decent sum.

The state has a monopoly on justice and ultimate decision making.. That ultimately is the role of the courts. Judges are human, so they're going to make their decision as humans---i.e. it will be objective, subjective and every manner in between.

>> Lawyers can simply bill like Susan Lim case and let the court to do the necessary.

Yep. MONOPOLY, thus they will behave as one would expect in a monopoly. We don't have market competition in courts---you're stuck with one justice system as dictated by The State.

This is one reason where in International Law they're trying to set up various courts and tribunals which "compete" with each other to decide on international law matters. Still not perfect, but it is a change. (Singapore recently has moved to adjudicate on international legal issues relating to commercial interests, but there are other courts too administered by other nation states)

Anonymous said...

You saying the courts are fixed or unfair or kangaroo?

Matilah_Singapura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matilah_Singapura said...

Probably all 3, to varying degrees. But I like kangaroo court,not because it is true or untrue, but because the imagery is funny)

But I am no ex-spurt. Thus I'm not responsible for the veracity of my distorted and inaccurate opinion. (i.e. you can't sue me because I'm just talking cock).

The problems with "authority" seizing the entire decision and judgment process is....

...fuck it I have too much to do....so much pussy, so little time...so just allow your imagination to come up with answers. And when you do you'll understand that BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT the judgement of a single authority is fraught with all sorts of shit that good go horribly wrong.

When the state gets it wrong, the state doesn't pay....you still pay, even thought you're in the right.

Skippy, skippy...Skippy the Bush Kangaroo....

Anonymous said...

Matilar u more expert in pussy lar. Any cheap and good one in Melbourne or not as I visiting soon leh and wanted to try white meat

b said...

In other words, to create jobs for the judges, always appeal the legal fees charged by lawyers?

b said...

perhaps, the court should also slash the medical fees charged by doctors?

b said...

but imho, drew forgot to invite the judge to some party so they kena slapped.

Anonymous said...

Judges can reduce ministers' salaries or not ah?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5.12pm pls note......

Can can can........

But the judges salaries may also be affected.......

So how..............

patriot said...

Whence a society depends, relies and requires much law enforcement to work its' system, it only means one thing, the Country is lousy.

patriot

Anonymous said...

The cuntry is not lousy.
The Leeders are lousy.
Mentor Lee.
Your proteges suck big time.
Is it fair to say you have failed in your mentoring duties?
If yes, we want a refund of your salary.