Law society of Singapore thinks that lawyer should charge $149 /hr, Paralegal: 116/hr.
Calc. is based upon the assumption that:
Both lawyer and his paralegal worked equal hours and overcharged proportionally.
"His hourly charge was $450. He charged another $350 an hour for his assistant, a paralegal" "The tribunal found that his gross overcharging - billing about 300 per cent of what the work was worth - was serious enough to refer the case to the Court of Three Judges."
Caveat: The calculation of hourly rate is specific to the complexity of this case handled.
Moral of the story, one should always be careful and decorous with one's endeavors so as not to encounter too many legal tangles that require complicated and protracted legal proceedings that waste court time and incur high legal costs.
=====ST========
The Straits Times; Published on Oct 8, 2011
Lawyer fined $50,000 for overcharging client
His bill for preparatory work came to $226k - 300% of what it's worth
By Selina Lum
Hired by a condo's management council to recover $2 million pocketed by an errant employee of its managing agent, a lawyer charged more than $226,000 for his services.
But Mr Andre Arul, who has 22 years' experience, had done only preparatory work and not sent any letter of demand to the people his client wanted to sue.
On Friday, the Court of Three Judges fined him $50,000 for overcharging.
He was also censured for failing to keep proper time sheets.
This is the first time a lawyer has been found guilty of gross overcharging since the Legal Profession Act was amended in 2008 to provide for monetary penalty as one of the punishments.
Previously, lawyers could only be struck off the rolls, suspended for up to five years or be censured by the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body in the legal profession.
Mr Arul is the sole proprietor of law firm Arul Chew & Partners.
In January 2008, he was hired by the management council of West Bay Condominium, which wanted him to act against the parties responsible for the misappropriation of the $2 million.
His hourly charge was $450. He charged another $350 an hour for his assistant, a paralegal.
For the services rendered until February 2009, he submitted three bills totalling $226,308.12. The council discharged him and complained to the Law Society that it had been overcharged.
The council has paid $109,297.35.
An independent disciplinary tribunal heard the case over three days in October last year. Senior lawyer Peter Cuthbert Low, testifying as an expert witness, said a reasonable sum to charge would have been about $75,000.
Mr Arul undertook to refund $33,725 - the difference between the amount paid by the council and $75,572.35, which the tribunal found to be a reasonable sum to charge for the work done.
The tribunal found that his gross overcharging - billing about 300 per cent of what the work was worth - was serious enough to refer the case to the Court of Three Judges.
selinal@sph.com.sg
Copyright © 2011 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_721192.html
Calc. is based upon the assumption that:
Both lawyer and his paralegal worked equal hours and overcharged proportionally.
"His hourly charge was $450. He charged another $350 an hour for his assistant, a paralegal" "The tribunal found that his gross overcharging - billing about 300 per cent of what the work was worth - was serious enough to refer the case to the Court of Three Judges."
Caveat: The calculation of hourly rate is specific to the complexity of this case handled.
Moral of the story, one should always be careful and decorous with one's endeavors so as not to encounter too many legal tangles that require complicated and protracted legal proceedings that waste court time and incur high legal costs.
=====ST========
The Straits Times; Published on Oct 8, 2011
Lawyer fined $50,000 for overcharging client
His bill for preparatory work came to $226k - 300% of what it's worth
By Selina Lum
Hired by a condo's management council to recover $2 million pocketed by an errant employee of its managing agent, a lawyer charged more than $226,000 for his services.
But Mr Andre Arul, who has 22 years' experience, had done only preparatory work and not sent any letter of demand to the people his client wanted to sue.
On Friday, the Court of Three Judges fined him $50,000 for overcharging.
He was also censured for failing to keep proper time sheets.
This is the first time a lawyer has been found guilty of gross overcharging since the Legal Profession Act was amended in 2008 to provide for monetary penalty as one of the punishments.
Previously, lawyers could only be struck off the rolls, suspended for up to five years or be censured by the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body in the legal profession.
Mr Arul is the sole proprietor of law firm Arul Chew & Partners.
In January 2008, he was hired by the management council of West Bay Condominium, which wanted him to act against the parties responsible for the misappropriation of the $2 million.
His hourly charge was $450. He charged another $350 an hour for his assistant, a paralegal.
For the services rendered until February 2009, he submitted three bills totalling $226,308.12. The council discharged him and complained to the Law Society that it had been overcharged.
The council has paid $109,297.35.
An independent disciplinary tribunal heard the case over three days in October last year. Senior lawyer Peter Cuthbert Low, testifying as an expert witness, said a reasonable sum to charge would have been about $75,000.
Mr Arul undertook to refund $33,725 - the difference between the amount paid by the council and $75,572.35, which the tribunal found to be a reasonable sum to charge for the work done.
The tribunal found that his gross overcharging - billing about 300 per cent of what the work was worth - was serious enough to refer the case to the Court of Three Judges.
selinal@sph.com.sg
Copyright © 2011 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_721192.html
No comments:
Post a Comment