The Law Society of Singapore will be getting a new president in January next year.
Last Thursday (13 Nov), Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi was elected as its president. He is currently the vice-president of Law Society.
Mr Lok Vi Ming, also a Senior Counsel, will step down on Dec 31 after serving as president for the past two years. He said in a statement: “It has been an extremely rewarding and fulfilling experience for me and I hope that my contributions… have been positive for the profession. It is time for fresher legs to take us through the next lap.”
Mr Thio hopes that the society will drive fresh initiatives that will help the community, and business and legal sectors.
“I also hope to work more closely with foreign lawyers and firms in Singapore to build a more integrated profession that is ready for the challenges and opportunities that Singapore as an economic and financial hub will face in the coming years,” said Mr Thio.
The number of foreign lawyers is likely to go up, as Singapore strives to be a top-tier international dispute resolution centre, he added.
“One major challenge will be to integrate foreign lawyers with the domestic legal community. Change is inevitable and our lawyers will also have to up their game to compete,” he said.
“Our role in regulating the professional conduct of foreign and domestic lawyers will increase.”
Controversies over some decisions made by Law Society
Under Mr Lok’s leadership in the past 2 years, there have been some controversies over decisions made by the Law Society when revealing the conducts of some lawyers.
In July this year, the husband of surgeon Dr Susan Lim launched a court action for a judicial review of a Law Society committee’s decision on two lawyers overcharging his wife.
After Dr Lim lost her case in court, she was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the SMC, who was represented by lawyers Alvin Yeo and Melanie Ho of Wong Partnership. Mr Yeo is also the PAP MP for Choa Chu Kang GRC.
The legal bill from Wong Partnership which Dr Lim was asked to pay was $1,007,009.37. Apparently, in one of the bills, Wong Partnership had charged some $77,102 for each day their lawyers were in court. In another bill, it was $46,729 for each day in court. And a third bill claimed that the lawyers’ charges amounted to $100,000 per hour of hearing.
Dr Lim disputed the million dollar legal fee charged by Wong Partnership and a taxation hearing was convened. The bill was subsequently reduced to $340,000 by the taxation registrar in court. Unhappy with the registrar’s decision, Mr Yeo and Ms Ho then applied to review this decision. High Court Judge Justice Woo Bih Li, who reviewed the matter, eventually allowed a total sum of $370,000 as costs, which was still substantially lower than the $1,007,009.37 originally claimed.
With the High Court decision, Dr Lim’s husband then complained to the Law Society that his wife had been overcharged by the lawyers, accusing Mr Yeo and Ms Ho of “gross overcharging” and “improper conduct”. Dr Lim’s husband wanted the Law Society to reprimand the 2 lawyers.
The Law Society convened a review committee to look into the complaint but subsequently dismissed the complaint against Mr Yeo, saying that his case was “lacking in substance”. The committee based its decision on Wong Partnership’s argument that “Mr Yeo was not involved in the preparation of the bills, and that there was therefore no misconduct on his part”. The committee, however, referred part of the complaint against Ms Ho to an inquiry committee for further investigation.
When the Law Society failed to reprimand especially Mr Yeo, Dr Lim’s husband then filed a court application asking the court to conduct a judicial review over the decision by the Law Society review committee, which dismissed his complaints of alleged professional misconduct on the part of the Wong Partnership lawyers.
“I believe that the actions by the lawyers in grossly overcharging my wife by $637,009 (the difference between the original bill amount of $1.007 million and the $370,000 allowed by Justice Woo) are dishonourable and constitute grossly improper conduct,” the husband said in his papers submitted to the court.
This is believed to be the first time that an application has been made for a judicial review of the decision made by a review committee of Law Society.
(View readers' comments here..............http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/11/16/new-lawsoc-president-wants-to-integrate-ft-lawyers/)
Last Thursday (13 Nov), Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi was elected as its president. He is currently the vice-president of Law Society.
Mr Lok Vi Ming, also a Senior Counsel, will step down on Dec 31 after serving as president for the past two years. He said in a statement: “It has been an extremely rewarding and fulfilling experience for me and I hope that my contributions… have been positive for the profession. It is time for fresher legs to take us through the next lap.”
Mr Thio hopes that the society will drive fresh initiatives that will help the community, and business and legal sectors.
“I also hope to work more closely with foreign lawyers and firms in Singapore to build a more integrated profession that is ready for the challenges and opportunities that Singapore as an economic and financial hub will face in the coming years,” said Mr Thio.
The number of foreign lawyers is likely to go up, as Singapore strives to be a top-tier international dispute resolution centre, he added.
“One major challenge will be to integrate foreign lawyers with the domestic legal community. Change is inevitable and our lawyers will also have to up their game to compete,” he said.
“Our role in regulating the professional conduct of foreign and domestic lawyers will increase.”
Controversies over some decisions made by Law Society
Under Mr Lok’s leadership in the past 2 years, there have been some controversies over decisions made by the Law Society when revealing the conducts of some lawyers.
In July this year, the husband of surgeon Dr Susan Lim launched a court action for a judicial review of a Law Society committee’s decision on two lawyers overcharging his wife.
After Dr Lim lost her case in court, she was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the SMC, who was represented by lawyers Alvin Yeo and Melanie Ho of Wong Partnership. Mr Yeo is also the PAP MP for Choa Chu Kang GRC.
The legal bill from Wong Partnership which Dr Lim was asked to pay was $1,007,009.37. Apparently, in one of the bills, Wong Partnership had charged some $77,102 for each day their lawyers were in court. In another bill, it was $46,729 for each day in court. And a third bill claimed that the lawyers’ charges amounted to $100,000 per hour of hearing.
Dr Lim disputed the million dollar legal fee charged by Wong Partnership and a taxation hearing was convened. The bill was subsequently reduced to $340,000 by the taxation registrar in court. Unhappy with the registrar’s decision, Mr Yeo and Ms Ho then applied to review this decision. High Court Judge Justice Woo Bih Li, who reviewed the matter, eventually allowed a total sum of $370,000 as costs, which was still substantially lower than the $1,007,009.37 originally claimed.
With the High Court decision, Dr Lim’s husband then complained to the Law Society that his wife had been overcharged by the lawyers, accusing Mr Yeo and Ms Ho of “gross overcharging” and “improper conduct”. Dr Lim’s husband wanted the Law Society to reprimand the 2 lawyers.
The Law Society convened a review committee to look into the complaint but subsequently dismissed the complaint against Mr Yeo, saying that his case was “lacking in substance”. The committee based its decision on Wong Partnership’s argument that “Mr Yeo was not involved in the preparation of the bills, and that there was therefore no misconduct on his part”. The committee, however, referred part of the complaint against Ms Ho to an inquiry committee for further investigation.
When the Law Society failed to reprimand especially Mr Yeo, Dr Lim’s husband then filed a court application asking the court to conduct a judicial review over the decision by the Law Society review committee, which dismissed his complaints of alleged professional misconduct on the part of the Wong Partnership lawyers.
“I believe that the actions by the lawyers in grossly overcharging my wife by $637,009 (the difference between the original bill amount of $1.007 million and the $370,000 allowed by Justice Woo) are dishonourable and constitute grossly improper conduct,” the husband said in his papers submitted to the court.
This is believed to be the first time that an application has been made for a judicial review of the decision made by a review committee of Law Society.
(View readers' comments here..............http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/11/16/new-lawsoc-president-wants-to-integrate-ft-lawyers/)
