smc
In recent weeks, there have been a lot written in some blogs about the so-called “overcharging” by lawyers from Wong Partnership for work done for the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
There has also been one petition set up to seek the “impeachment” of one of the lawyers involved, People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament (MP), Alvin Yeo.
Mr Yeo, along with his colleagues, Melanie Ho and Lim Wei Lee, were the lawyers for the SMC in its legal action against Dr Susan Lim, who was later found guilty of overcharging her client, a member of the Brunei royal family, for services Dr Lim rendered which totalled about $24 million.
The SMC had sought to claim some S$1.33 million from Dr Lim as costs for the hearings. The SMC said that this was the bill charged to it by Wong Partnership.
After several appeal and counter-appeal hearings before court registrars and judges, the High Court finally decided in September that the total costs which could be claimed by the SMC against Dr Lim should be S$317,000.
In other words, it is a vast reduction from the amount sought by the medical council.
In fact, it is a mere one quarter of the costs claimed by the SMC.
Now, to be clear, taxation (that is, costs assessment) hearings by the court are not unusual. In fact, it is quite a common practice, from what this writer is told.
Losers in a case would try and have the costs taxed down, while winners seek to claim as much of the legal costs as possible.
The court’s role is to decide what is a reasonable claim.
And in this particular case involving the SMC, the court assistant registrar, Jacqueline Lee, has judged that the claims by the SMC were “inflated” and has taxed them down substantially.
So, the question is not that Mr Yeo (and his colleagues) had been “found guilty by the High Court for overcharging Susan Lim”, as alleged by one blog post.
They were not found guilty of anything simply because there was no such case brought against the lawyers, and thus there is no finding of fact that they had overcharged anyone, let alone Dr Lim who, by the way, is not their client. (So, how could the lawyers have charged her, let alone overcharge her, at all?)
Nonetheless, while taxation hearings are not unusual, the fact that the costs claimed by the SMC have been taxed down rather substantially by the courts should raise question about the bill from Wong Partnership.
Thus, the real question here is: what is the SMC going to do about the apparently excessive or exorbitant costs it was charged by the Wong Partnership lawyers?
From what this writer understands, it is the SMC which must file a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) that it has been overcharged by its lawyers, if indeed the SMC feels this is needed.
The LawSoc will then convene a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing to look into the matter, as it has done in previous complaints, such as the recent one involving lawyer, Andre Arul.
According to the Rules outlined in the Legal Professions Act, lawyers are expected “to act in the best interest of his client and to charge fairly for work done.”
“Gross overcharging for work done” is considered professional misconduct, the Law Society website says.
But before we jump the gun and make wrong or unfounded accusations against the lawyers of Wong Partnership, or create petitions for them to be “impeached” because of the alleged “overcharging”, we must be fair that there must first be findings of facts and for the accused (if indeed they should be accused of such) be given the opportunity to defend themselves.
It is thus premature to jump to conclusions without first going through due process.
It is now up to the SMC to let the public know what it intends to do with regards to the apparent overcharging by its lawyers.
This is especially pertinent given the fact that it was the SMC which took great umbrage at Dr Lim’s overcharging her client.
Why then should the SMC not similarly take offence at being overcharged by its lawyers?
As Mr Daniel Chia wrote in his letter to the press on Tuesday:

“To me, the issue is not why the lawyers’ fees to be paid by the losing party were taxed lower than the claimed amount. The question is how the SMC could have allowed a situation where it incurred $900,000 in legal fees for a single disciplinary case.
“I am not saying the SMC was wrong, but I echo Dr Lim’s call for financial prudence and an independent review.”

All eyes should be directed at the SMC and its members – at least for now.
*The president of the SMC is Professor Tan Ser Kiat, who is also a member of the Public Service Commission, amongst several other posts he holds.

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

印度一大学涉卖假文凭 15工作准证持有者遭人力部调查

印度一所大学–玛纳夫巴迪(Manav Bharti)大学,被当地执法机构揭发,11年来”贩卖“多达3万6千份假文凭! 该大学共发出4万1千份文凭,但只有5千名毕业生是真材实料的。此事件曝光,也让当地民众质疑,有关基金会所运营的其他学府,是否也涉及或参与出售假文凭。 本社早前在知名求职和人才招聘网站领英(LinkedIn)搜寻,发现确实有一些领英账号,在简介中提及曾在玛纳夫巴迪大学就读,且自称目前在新加坡工作。 对此,人力部也跟进此事,表示正在调查15名自称“考获”上述大学文凭的工作证件持有者。 人力部强调,若一经证实学历造假,他们的工作证件就立即被撤销,且永久被禁止到新加坡工作。 当局也会在《雇用外来人力法令》下,提控文凭造假者,最高刑罚是两万元罚款、两年监禁或两者兼施。 该局指出,过去五年每年平均有660名外籍人士,申请工作准证时提呈假学历,结果被永久禁止入境。 每年平均有八名外籍人士,因申报假学历遭严惩。 人力部也重申,雇主聘请外籍人士,有责任确保他们的学历资格属实。

Minister Khaw’s remark on pay for crane operators

By Terry Xu National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan wrote in his blog…

FOTF "relationship programme" will "cease by end-2014": MOE

The controversial “relationship programme” run by the charity organisation, Focus on the…

S&P: Hyflux’s capital structure “hardly sustainable” when it issued perpetual securities in 2016

S&P Global Ratings said on Tue (9 Apr) that more defaults may…