• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hours?

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
FROM $235,000 CUT TO $22,000

The amount claimed to pay law firm Shook Lin & Bok for the services of legal assessor V. Coomaraswamy during the second disciplinary hearing CUT TO $22,000 from

The judgment: A legal assessor attends SMC disciplinary hearings only to advise on questions of law, and to alert the committee of any irregularity in the proceedings. He may also help the committee draft its decision. For the work of the legal assessor in the first hearing, which totalled 65 hours, law firm Wee Swee Teow charged $49,200 for Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon's time. This was reduced to $45,000.

In the second hearing, Shook Lin & Bok charged $235,000 for then Senior Counsel V. Coomaraswamy's 224 hours of work done between August 2010 and July 2012. Ms Lee noted the start date for the bill was before the second disciplinary committee had even been formed.[/B] [/COLOR]

Questioning the number of hours of work by Mr Coomaraswamy, she said: "Even rounding up all the hours taken for the nine pre-inquiry conferences and the five inquiry hearings, they should add up to no more than 32 hours. This only leaves one to wonder how the second legal assessor spent the balance of approximately 180 hours."

Ms Lee made it clear she believed the lawyer, who is now a Supreme Court judge, had actually spent 224 hours on the case, possibly on internal meetings. But without details, she said, she was unable to decide if any of them could be considered part of required work.

She said it was not fair for Dr Lim to be charged $1,050 per hour for Mr Coomaraswamy's work, when the previous legal assessor had charged $570 per hour - as it was not her fault a second committee had to be set up to hear her case.
 

cocobobo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

FROM $235,000 CUT TO $22,000

The amount claimed to pay law firm Shook Lin & Bok for the services of legal assessor V. Coomaraswamy during the second disciplinary hearing CUT TO $22,000 from

The judgment: A legal assessor attends SMC disciplinary hearings only to advise on questions of law, and to alert the committee of any irregularity in the proceedings. He may also help the committee draft its decision. For the work of the legal assessor in the first hearing, which totalled 65 hours, law firm Wee Swee Teow charged $49,200 for Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon's time. This was reduced to $45,000.

In the second hearing, Shook Lin & Bok charged $235,000 for then Senior Counsel V. Coomaraswamy's 224 hours of work done between August 2010 and July 2012. Ms Lee noted the start date for the bill was before the second disciplinary committee had even been formed.[/B] [/COLOR]

Questioning the number of hours of work by Mr Coomaraswamy, she said: "Even rounding up all the hours taken for the nine pre-inquiry conferences and the five inquiry hearings, they should add up to no more than 32 hours. This only leaves one to wonder how the second legal assessor spent the balance of approximately 180 hours."

Ms Lee made it clear she believed the lawyer, who is now a Supreme Court judge, had actually spent 224 hours on the case, possibly on internal meetings. But without details, she said, she was unable to decide if any of them could be considered part of required work.

She said it was not fair for Dr Lim to be charged $1,050 per hour for Mr Coomaraswamy's work, when the previous legal assessor had charged $570 per hour - as it was not her fault a second committee had to be set up to hear her case.

karaoke, massage, all necessary expense mah... internal mtgs at harrys
 

virus

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

mebbe a lot of special after massage. so for the story of bank exec asking 3K a shot, it is now possible not plausible the fee were reasonable due to bonking needs, i mean banking needs.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

Looks like there will be no windfall profits from the regime sanctioned gangbang on Dr Lim.

Lackeys should think twice before collaborating with the First Family. The gruel is getting thin and not everyone is going to get a cut.
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

Ms Lee made it clear she believed the lawyer, who is now a Supreme Court judge, had actually spent 224 hours on the case, possibly on internal meetings. But without details, she said, she was unable to decide if any of them could be considered part of required work.

=> What does she mean "possibly" this and that? Just summon him out to testify and explain! Or is she afraid of offending him, who is now her boss? It seems that the entire FAP gang is insatiably greedy and dishonest!
 

bhoven

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

Ms Lee made it clear she believed the lawyer, who is now a Supreme Court judge, had actually spent 224 hours on the case, possibly on internal meetings. But without details, she said, she was unable to decide if any of them could be considered part of required work.

=> What does she mean "possibly" this and that? Just summon him out to testify and explain! Or is she afraid of offending him, who is now her boss? It seems that the entire FAP gang is insatiably greedy and dishonest!

She has to cover all bases....but I do admire her guts....
 

rushifa666

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

If you are useless and you keep on having meetings because you are useless is it fair to the client that he is billed for your incompetence ?
 

virus

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

Didn't someone mentioned about lawyer turned .minister was chasing skirts as past time. Like that got count?
 

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

If you are useless and you keep on having meetings because you are useless is it fair to the client that he is billed for your incompetence ?

In this instance, there is nothing about being fair or not fair.
It is just pure greed.
Their time sheets (which they use to shit on clients) show them clocking against the client even before the case started!
What does Law Minister have to say?
He commented on dogs, cats etc and yet has not opened his mouth or on FB to give his views on the people who may have slurred his beloved profession.
Or Indranee too?
 

virus

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

Let the sinner alllowed to cast the first stone?
 

Cerebral

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
I am sure if someone took their timesheet and added all the hours together, they may get beyond 24 hours a day
 

congo9

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

If you are useless and you keep on having meetings because you are useless is it fair to the client that he is billed for your incompetence ?

It is perfectly all right if you have lots of mouth to feed.
 

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Judge: Work 32 hours, how did lawyer (now High Court judge) spend balance 180 hou

Over billing is not overcharging and is not an offence



I keep pondering over this statement and keep asking myself if it makes any sense? Is over billing overcharging? And why is overcharging an offence and over billing is not?

The Sunday Times gave nearly one page to Salma Khalik’s article with the title, ‘High court slashes SMC’s claims, calling them EXORBITANT, UNREASONABLE’. I like the big fonts and bold treatment of the words exorbitant and unreasonable. I wonder if there is a deeper meaning to it. Other than slashing down the high bills, there were no penalties for overcharging. Oops, correction, it is over billing, not overcharging. I am so tempted to look at all the dictionaries to see if there is any difference or similarities between the two words.

Susan Lim was found guilty for overcharging the Brunei royalties $24.8m for 7 months of work. She was fined $10,000, suspended for practice for 3 years and to pay cost to SMC. SMC took Susan Lim to task for overcharging. And Susan Lim’s husband took the SMC to court for overcharging. Sorry, it is over billing. The word overcharging keeps bugging me and I could not shake it off.

Ok, Susan Lim did some work for her client and sent her a bill for her services. In the SMC case, they took Susan Lim to court and won and sent her a bill, not for services rendered but for time and effort spent on the case. So it was not a case of charging a client for services. I think this is the difference between over billing and overcharging.

Now, how much did the SMC over billed? Four cases were highlighted in Salma’s report. 1. from $900,000 to $180,000, 2. from $235,000 to $22.000, 3. from $42,000 to $5,000 and 4. from $150,000 to $70,000. These add up to $1,327,000 and cut to $277,000.

In the same report, Salma mentioned that last year a bill of $1m was cut to $370,000 and last month a bill of $1.3m was slashed to $317,000. I will not try to rationalise the numbers but just using the last two numbers, the two bills came to $2.3m which ended up as $687,000 or an over billing of $1,613,000, or about 220% of $687,000.

In Susan Lim’s case, the court ruled that there is ethical ground not to overcharge a client. I quote, ‘Overcharging can still occur even if there is a prior agreement on fees as ethical obligations of a doctor must “prevail over contractual obligations”. I am not sure if a court would make a similar ruling on overcharging when lawyers over billed or overcharged their clients. Would ethics be an important factor in legal billings? The decision by the court is between the SMC and Susan Lim.

Would it be over charging if the case is between the SMC and their lawyers when it becomes the lawyer billing the SMC for services rendered? So far the most authoritative body, the Law Society had made a statement that over billing is not overcharging and is an acceptable or normal practice. There is no wrongdoing involved. So the court just slashed the bills and end of story. No penalties or fines or suspension of practices are warranted.

Would the SMC sue its legal representatives and those who stood as witnesses for overcharging? If these parties accepted the court’s decision, there is no more case to follow up, I think, end of story. What if these parties continue to demand payment from the SMC?

http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2014/10/over-billing-is-not-overcharging-and-is.html
 
Top