Law Society – Alvin Yeo did not overcharged

‘In Singapore, the general rule is that the losing party has to pay costs to the winning party. Parties can agree on the quantum to be paid, or if they disagree, the court will decide the amount payable after hearing arguments from both sets of lawyers. This is known as taxation.
 
The winning party’s lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court’s detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items.
 
The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party. 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….
 
The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.
The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.’
 
Shawn Toh
Director, Communications
The Law Society of Singapore

Below are some of the comments posted in TRE in response to the above letter (not in full) from the Law Society. I leave it to the readers to enjoy the read.
 
• downfall of singapore:
October 16, 2014 at 11:52 am (Quote)
these people know now that singapore is in a state of disarray with regards to moral and ethical behaviour so fleece as much a possible before it tanks
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
 
• Crooked ppl, crooked logic:
October 16, 2014 at 11:54 am (Quote)
Why no such logic in the medical field? Dr Susan Lim wouldn’t have been found guilty if she can also defended herself by saying, “Medical fees being judged to be lesser than charged doesn’t mean overcharging.”  
Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
 
• Define "over-charging"...:
October 16, 2014 at 11:58 am (Quote)
If the Law Society claims that Alvin Yeo did not overcharged Susan Lim then can it kindly elaborate on the following:
(1) what did Alvin do if it was not overcharging?
(2) define overcharging (in legal and in layman’s terms)?
(3) isn’t a lawyer ultimately responsible for the bill on his services?
(4) what is different in Alvin’s Yeo case from those cases previously judged by the Law Society as overcharging?  
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
 
• Confirmed & double confirmed !:
October 16, 2014 at 11:59 am (Quote)
The law is a joke, is a rich man game. Now, it confirmed that it is also manipulated protection of the PAPees Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
 
• Party Against People:
October 16, 2014 at 12:02 pm (Quote)
The blatant increase in Alvin legal fees is not overcharging makes the rapist claim that he did not rape the victim but had sex. Come off Lembus, speak in clear
English as majority of your clients do not have your legal skills. LS statement is joke of the decade and SDP Chee should highlight in his speech in IBA. Hahaha

Kopi Level - Yellow