mr funny
22-02-11, 18:39
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_637408.html
Feb 22, 2011
Lawyer overcharged condo MC, says tribunal
His bill of over $226,000 was three times what he should have charged
By Tham Yuen-C
THE lawyer was hired by the management council (MC) of a condominium to recover $2 million taken by a staff member of a firm employed to manage the property.
But when the council disputed the bill submitted by lawyer Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul, it led to a probe by a disciplinary tribunal.
In its report yesterday, the tribunal found him guilty of overcharging and recommended that he be tried by the Court of Three Judges, Singapore's highest legal body governing the discipline of lawyers.
Mr Arul was hired in January 2008 by the MC of West Bay Condominium, which wanted him to act against the parties responsible for the misappropriation of the $2 million.
For the services rendered until February 2009, he submitted a bill of $226,308.12. The MC complained to the Law Society that it had been overcharged.
A two-man disciplinary tribunal, headed by Senior Counsel Goh Phai Cheng, was appointed to probe the case.
In its report, the tribunal found that the sum of $226,308.12 was close to three times what Mr Arul should have charged.
In his defence, Mr Arul said the charges were calculated based on his rates stated in his contract with the MC.
The lawyer had listed his fees as $450 an hour, an amount the tribunal did not dispute was fair. But he had also charged $350 an hour for the services of Mr Adrian Kho, a paralegal assisting him in the case.
An expert called by the Law Society testified that that rate was on the 'high side' for a paralegal.
It did not square that the rate for Mr Kho, who has 10 years' experience as a paralegal, was just $100 lower than Mr Arul's rate, especially since the latter was a lawyer with 22 years' experience.
Also in contention were the time sheets that Mr Arul and Mr Kho kept. In them, there were only estimates of the amount of time they spent on the case, but no descriptions of actual work done. The tribunal said this made the time sheets 'totally useless and meaningless'.
Mr Arul had billed for 570 hours of work, which the tribunal said was 'exceptionally astronomical and totally unjustified', given what little he had achieved. It heard that he had not sent any letter of demand or started any legal proceedings for his client in the 13 months he acted as its lawyer.
In comparison, the MC's new lawyers, hired after it discharged Mr Arul, had issued a letter of demand within a month and a writ of summons within six months.
The expert called by the Law Society estimated that the work done by Mr Arul was worth $75,000.
[email protected]
Feb 22, 2011
Lawyer overcharged condo MC, says tribunal
His bill of over $226,000 was three times what he should have charged
By Tham Yuen-C
THE lawyer was hired by the management council (MC) of a condominium to recover $2 million taken by a staff member of a firm employed to manage the property.
But when the council disputed the bill submitted by lawyer Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul, it led to a probe by a disciplinary tribunal.
In its report yesterday, the tribunal found him guilty of overcharging and recommended that he be tried by the Court of Three Judges, Singapore's highest legal body governing the discipline of lawyers.
Mr Arul was hired in January 2008 by the MC of West Bay Condominium, which wanted him to act against the parties responsible for the misappropriation of the $2 million.
For the services rendered until February 2009, he submitted a bill of $226,308.12. The MC complained to the Law Society that it had been overcharged.
A two-man disciplinary tribunal, headed by Senior Counsel Goh Phai Cheng, was appointed to probe the case.
In its report, the tribunal found that the sum of $226,308.12 was close to three times what Mr Arul should have charged.
In his defence, Mr Arul said the charges were calculated based on his rates stated in his contract with the MC.
The lawyer had listed his fees as $450 an hour, an amount the tribunal did not dispute was fair. But he had also charged $350 an hour for the services of Mr Adrian Kho, a paralegal assisting him in the case.
An expert called by the Law Society testified that that rate was on the 'high side' for a paralegal.
It did not square that the rate for Mr Kho, who has 10 years' experience as a paralegal, was just $100 lower than Mr Arul's rate, especially since the latter was a lawyer with 22 years' experience.
Also in contention were the time sheets that Mr Arul and Mr Kho kept. In them, there were only estimates of the amount of time they spent on the case, but no descriptions of actual work done. The tribunal said this made the time sheets 'totally useless and meaningless'.
Mr Arul had billed for 570 hours of work, which the tribunal said was 'exceptionally astronomical and totally unjustified', given what little he had achieved. It heard that he had not sent any letter of demand or started any legal proceedings for his client in the 13 months he acted as its lawyer.
In comparison, the MC's new lawyers, hired after it discharged Mr Arul, had issued a letter of demand within a month and a writ of summons within six months.
The expert called by the Law Society estimated that the work done by Mr Arul was worth $75,000.
[email protected]