7/24/2013

Champerty is now legal and acceptable (Correction, my mistake)


The latest ruling in the High Courts by the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang on Champerty is most welcomed by the people and the legal fraternity. The practice of allowing lawyers to be paid only on winning a case was illegal in the past but due to the overriding circumstances of extremely forbidding legal fees this has to change. Otherwise many people who cannot afford the high legal fees will be robbed of justice in our world class legal system. It then would be like only the rich can buy justice and the poor will be robbed of justice, punished by injustice.

There are other issues for making this practice illegal in the past such as lawyers demanding excessive payouts and leading to conflicts of interest, or frivolous litigation. The latter, frivolous litigation, is now the hobby of the rich, knowing that they can threaten the poor with Sue and the poor would have to say sorry even if not guilty, no money to pay for legal fees. Such concerns can always be taken care of in modernity when the clients can seek redress should they think they have been cheated. The legal system, the legal profession, must make provisions for unhappy clients to have an avenue for mediation and conciliation when there is a dispute with the mighty legal professionals on legal fees. There must be transparency, honesty and integrity in the legal profession if this change is to work.

The change will now make justice available to all, including those who cannot afford the legal fees. Maybe the fees can be worked into a case on a contractual basis and open to scrutiny and investigation by the legal profession and the courts. This may make things more transparent and equitable and not be subject to abuse and discriminatory practices of foul lawyers.

This is definitely a good thing and the rich and powerful are less likely to take advantage of the poor and weak now.

PS. My apologies. I thought I read the paper yesterday saying that this was a big change in our legal system. I re read and see this statement, '

“We wish to emphasize that until and unless there is a change in the law, lawyers who enter into champertous agreements can expect to face at least a substantial period of suspension,” Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon wrote in the court’s 45-page decision, “and depending on the factual matrix this period could well exceed the present imposition of six months.”



Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202611925480&Singapores_Top_Court_Suspends_Lawyer_for_Champerty#ixzz2ZvN189oV

20 comments:

  1. Alamak what is champerty? RB can explain? It is nothing to do with roti plata right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am hoping that my share broker will allow me to buy shares he recommended to go up in price and collect his fees from my winnings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Champerty is now legal and acceptable
    RB

    RB, you sure you read the case correctly or not?

    The lawyer was suspended for 6 months due to champerty! See

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202611925480&Singapores_Top_Court_Suspends_Lawyer_for_Champerty

    And you said champerty is legal and acceptable?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Champerty is like an agreement between client and lawyer and client only pays when the lawyer wins the case. Lose no pay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RB, where is your source or article of latest High court ruling stating champerty is legal and acceptable?

    If champerty is illegal, only Parliament can change laws to make it legal, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. oldhorse42 pls note :

    if yr stock broker decided to practise champerty, pls recommend to us..........thank you....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ya lor, that's why MPs are also known as law makers.

    So the more MPs a party has, the more powerful they can make or change laws in Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RB, you need to clarify your posting heading. Is it correct? If not, make correction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stockbroking company can think out of the box and take up champerty. When you buy stocks no commissions. When you sell, make money collect commissions, lose money no commissions!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks guys. I made a mistake. It was stated in my own dossier that there was a new ruling. Ok, for my honesty and integrity, I admit I made a mistake and corrected my error in the PS.

    As for commission of brokers, it is now as low as 0.3% and mostly $16 a trade. How to make a living. Legal fees can be hundreds of thousands or millions.

    Last time 1% everyone happy because investors and speculators were all making money. Now free also no one want to buy stocks. All losing money. $16 also cannot afford to pay or don't want to pay.

    You people don't ask money from remisiers today. They are mostly broke, earning less than a cleaner in the hawker centre. Soon many will quit altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RB

    NEVER MIND LAH..... WHO NEVER MAKE HONEST MISTAKE?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dont fret, last heard from a part time taxi driver just days ago that $50 a day's taking is 'sub sub sui', meaning easily made.
    Those in stock broking need only switch from driving lambos to driving hyundais.
    Leave the cleaning jobs to the oldies. Please do not break their rice bowl.
    Tolong tolong!

    ReplyDelete
  13. no no no.......

    the stockbrokers can drive taxi or crane if attractive .......

    the oldies to be taken care by our government through various schemes......

    the cleaning jobs must must must leave it to FTs.....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Be a priest.
    Just blah blah blah
    and collect rewards.
    Chant a little alien words
    and get 'ang paus' at the
    stated sum, usually no less
    than 3 digits.
    Best is getting treated only
    second to gods.
    Happy happy make money.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is obvious that you, as most lay people rely on news reports which are of neccesity not a full and often does not give a proper picture. You say that frivolous claims by the rich are pursued against the poor and the weak in terrorem. That may well be true but the Courts will come down hard on the rich if they pursue frivolous claims like the recent rebuke handed to the insurance company and its lawyers for pursuing a contest of wills and may evn make the lawyers pay the costs of the proceedings.The Court in this case merely made on observation at the end of their judgment that 'arrangements' may be made to collect the appropriate fees and disbursements from impecunious clients.No change of any kind in the law was intended or made by the Court as you suggest.

    ReplyDelete
  16. They should implement no win no pay and no cure no pay system for lawyers and doctors respectively. This will be more in lined with other professions. They have been taking advantage of the unjust system far too long.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why not ask SMRT ex-CEO Saw Phaik Hwa.
    If no cure, did she still get paid?

    ReplyDelete
  18. RB
    You always criticize America.
    American legal system already have what you can only tan ku ku in Singapore.

    In America, they call it contingent fees.
    Not champerty or chempedak or chimpanzee.

    What are contingent fees?

    A client pays a contingent fees to a lawyer only if the lawyer handles a case successfully. Lawyers and clients use this arrangement only in cases where money is being claimed—most often in cases involving personal injury or workers' compensation.

    Source:
    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_issues_for_consumers/lawyerfees_contingent.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just because I critized a lot of American foreign policies does not mean that everything in America is bad. There are many good things happening in the US. But there are many bad things happening there too. Just like there are many good Americans and also the bad ones.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Champerty in Singapore? No way lah. It is very dangerous to run after ambulances, especially on the very busy Singapore roads.

    Anyway most Singapore lawyers are too drunk and unfit to chase ambulances.

    ReplyDelete