A lawyer who kept $40,250 as legal costs out of a $52,398 award was ordered to show the bills for the court to say how much he should get.
The lawyer, Mr. Low Yong Sen, may end up having to refund part of the money billed to his client, Mr. Ho Cheng Lay, eight years ago.
Mr. Low had deducted the sum from Mr. Ho’s share of the sale of his matrimonial home following his divorce.
He had told Mr. Ho, an illiterate drink stall hawker, that the money was for legal fees he had charged in acting for him in the proceedings.
Mr. Low claimed his client had consented to the deductions but Mr. Ho denied this at a Disciplinary Committee (DC) probe in 2005 which followed a complaint to the Law Society that he had been ripped off.
He had received only $7,101 of the $52,398 sale proceeds.
Last August, through legal aid-appointed lawyer Lee Chin Seon, he applied to have five legal bills taxed by the High Court, which allows the court to assess the bills.
But Mr. Low objected, claiming it was too late.
Under existing rules, a client who is unhappy with the sums charged by a lawyer can apply to have the bills taxed by the court instead, but within a 12-month period.
In his judgment released last week, Justice Kan Ting Chiu of the High Court said that even if the deadline had passed, the court could consider late cases if there were special circumstances.
One of those in this case was the finding by the DC probe, which concluded in 2006 that Mr. Low had overcharged his client.
Mr. Low was reprimanded, fined $25,500 and ordered to pay $40,000 in costs to the Law Society.
But he refused to make restitution to Mr. Ho even though experts called by the Law Society in the probe suggested he should have charged only about $16,000 for the work. It is understood that the DC does not have powers to order restitution.
Justice Kan said the bills Mr. Low had used to charge his client lacked details, and were ‘deficient in content’.
Mr. Low, defended by lawyer P. Padman, argued that he no longer had the bills as he had thrown away the files for the case.
Under Law Society guidelines, such files need be kept only for six years.
Justice Kan questioned why he had done this when ‘he should have known that further action may be taken in relation to the bills’.
But he added that not all the records had been lost as relevant details could be culled from the DC’s report.
Mr. Low is currently not practising and last August was suspended for six months by a Court of Three Judges for overcharging a couple in an unrelated case.
1 comment:
Hawker awarded $52k but lawyer kept $40k
K. C. Vijayan, Straits Times
17 March 2009
A lawyer who kept $40,250 as legal costs out of a $52,398 award was ordered to show the bills for the court to say how much he should get.
The lawyer, Mr. Low Yong Sen, may end up having to refund part of the money billed to his client, Mr. Ho Cheng Lay, eight years ago.
Mr. Low had deducted the sum from Mr. Ho’s share of the sale of his matrimonial home following his divorce.
He had told Mr. Ho, an illiterate drink stall hawker, that the money was for legal fees he had charged in acting for him in the proceedings.
Mr. Low claimed his client had consented to the deductions but Mr. Ho denied this at a Disciplinary Committee (DC) probe in 2005 which followed a complaint to the Law Society that he had been ripped off.
He had received only $7,101 of the $52,398 sale proceeds.
Last August, through legal aid-appointed lawyer Lee Chin Seon, he applied to have five legal bills taxed by the High Court, which allows the court to assess the bills.
But Mr. Low objected, claiming it was too late.
Under existing rules, a client who is unhappy with the sums charged by a lawyer can apply to have the bills taxed by the court instead, but within a 12-month period.
In his judgment released last week, Justice Kan Ting Chiu of the High Court said that even if the deadline had passed, the court could consider late cases if there were special circumstances.
One of those in this case was the finding by the DC probe, which concluded in 2006 that Mr. Low had overcharged his client.
Mr. Low was reprimanded, fined $25,500 and ordered to pay $40,000 in costs to the Law Society.
But he refused to make restitution to Mr. Ho even though experts called by the Law Society in the probe suggested he should have charged only about $16,000 for the work. It is understood that the DC does not have powers to order restitution.
Justice Kan said the bills Mr. Low had used to charge his client lacked details, and were ‘deficient in content’.
Mr. Low, defended by lawyer P. Padman, argued that he no longer had the bills as he had thrown away the files for the case.
Under Law Society guidelines, such files need be kept only for six years.
Justice Kan questioned why he had done this when ‘he should have known that further action may be taken in relation to the bills’.
But he added that not all the records had been lost as relevant details could be culled from the DC’s report.
Mr. Low is currently not practising and last August was suspended for six months by a Court of Three Judges for overcharging a couple in an unrelated case.
Post a Comment