|
©The Sun
by Andrew Wong
THE Solicitors’ Remuneration Enforcement Committee (SREC) is
a committee of the Malaysian Bar Council set up to ensure that all lawyers
comply with the Solicitors Remuneration Order 2005 (SRO).
The SRO regulates the scale or fixed fees that may be charged
by a lawyer for handling property transactions such as sale and purchase, loans,
banking facilities and other non-contentious business. It also prohibits the
giving of any discount on such fees.
Roger Tan (pix), the chairman of the SREC talks about
the SRO and the no discount rule.
What is the purpose of the SRO and how will it benefit
consumers?
The purpose of the SRO is to fix the fee that a solicitor may
charge his client for property-related transactions. A fixed scale of fees is a
common method of charging for professional services and will benefit consumers
in that fees are readily ascertainable. For many first-time purchasers of
property, knowing beforehand how much to set aside for such costs is important.
It will prevent lawyers from overcharging; it protects the small consumers and
also protects the public against inefficiencies of a solicitor since the scale
sets a fixed rate regardless of time taken.
Let me show you the table below which compares the fees
charged by other professions:
| PROFESSION |
GOVERNING BODY |
STATUTORY SCALE OF FEES |
DISCOUNT ALLOWED |
REMARKS |
| Accountants |
Malaysian Institute
of Accountants |
No |
Not applicable |
MIA has set out a recommended basis for determining
audit fees based on time charge, and the value of total assets or gross
turnover or operating expenditure. |
| Architects |
Board of Architects |
Yes |
No |
Fee is based on cost of works and a regressive
yardstick ranging from 10% to 3.5% is applied. |
| Doctors |
Malaysian Medical Association |
No |
Not applicable |
MMA has set out guidelines on charges payable. |
| Engineers |
Board of Engineers |
Yes |
No |
Fee is based on cost of works and a regressive
yardstick ranging from 8.25% to 2.28% is applied. |
| Land Surveyor |
Board of Land Surveyors. |
Yes |
No |
Fees are paid to Board before commencement of work
and will be paid out by Board in accordance with work done. |
But various people have argued against a fixed scale of
fees.
Well, that is true. They have said that on economic
principle, legal costs should be decided by free market forces. Some have said
that it insulates the incompetent lawyer from the competitive environment as
there is little incentive to adopt cost-saving measures and improve practice
management and service standards. Others have said that it prevents the public
from choosing to pay less for a lower but acceptable standard of service, and
also that such matters are often handled by clerks and not lawyers and the scale
does not commensurate with the level of skills in conveyancing.
There are also some who have argued that lawyers and clients
should be allowed to negotiate a fee, and that the rule is in total disregard of
Asian social values — as it compels a lawyer to charge the full scale fees.
Others say competition should be encouraged and not stifled and a discount will
not lead to undercutting as the public should be able to appreciate that the
cheapest may not be the best. They believe that the public’s interest is
sufficiently protected if scale fees are prescribed as the maximum fees and that
the rule deprives the public from engaging lawyers who comply with it.
Why then the need to have scale fees and the no discount
rule?
Of course, we at the Bar Council have taken all these
arguments into consideration and have concluded that, in comparison, the
advantages of a fixed-scale regime far outweigh its abolition. In fact, from Jan
1, 2006, our fees for the standard statutory Schedules G & H sale and purchase
agreements and financing agreements have also been reduced.
To the public, this rule is better known as the no discount
rule. But to the Bar Council and the legal profession, it is more than that. The
rule is also a no overcharging and undercutting rule. To date, we have, after
receipt of complaints, hauled up those members who overcharged and they were
also ordered to refund the overcharged fees to their clients.
In fact, the rule will ensure a fair and level “playing
field” for all firms — big or small — because no matter which firm a client goes
to, the prescribed fee for his property transaction will be the same. Lawyers
will have the proper incentive to carry out the transaction to completion
without having to argue with clients about a discount.
To us, as solicitors, we are professionals and haggling over
fees only results in lowering the dignity of the legal profession, and giving of
discounts can lead the client to believe that a lawyer can be bought and sold.
With the rule, a client is free to choose his lawyer, either in a big firm or
small firm, and not be forced to engage services with the best discounts. The
rule prevents undercutting among lawyers. Giving discounts on fees can
also result in lawyers “cutting corners” to the detriment of their clients.
So, when fees do not commensurate with the services provided,
it is not uncommon for the quality to be compromised. Thus, scale fees prevent
overcharging and undercutting, and it protects consumers by promoting quality
services as solicitors will compete based on the quality of their services and
not on pricing.
Do scale fees then create a monopoly?
Well, contrary to popular belief, lawyers do not have a
monopoly on conveyancing work as each stage of the conveyancing work can
realistically be done and performed by either the seller or the buyer of the
property himself.
Parties can draw up their own agreement which can be attested
by any person of full age. Any instrument of dealing required can be attested by
any officer or person specified in the Fifth Schedule to the National Land Code.
The purchaser can conduct his own title search, submit his agreement or
instrument of transfer for stamping and present the instrument for registration.
The vendor or the purchaser will have to accept the risks on
their own. But if they wish to engage a solicitor and pass the risks to the
solicitor, then the Bar Council is of the view that the solicitor should be
reasonably and fairly remunerated for undertaking the work.
Is the Bar Council’s stand on scale fees and the no
discount rule supported by other professional bodies and related associations?
Very much so. On Jan 20 last year, the Bar Council
together with nine other professional bodies and boards issued a joint
memorandum in support of professional scale fees. The collective view is that
professional services are intellectual and creative products, and not
commodities, and that it is not in the interest of the public for professional
fees to be decided entirely by “market forces”.
A “free market” situation will lead to an unhealthy
widespread undercutting of professional fees and the quality of professional
services rendered being compromised.
We also have the support of the Federation of Malaysian
Consumers Associations (Fomca) and the National House Buyers’ Association. These
two bodies represent a very large segment of the public who pay legal fees.
In fact, many members have reported to us that more members
of the public and financial institutions now appreciate the reason behind the
rule.
Given time, will the Bar Council change this rule?
I don’t think so. This issue cropped up many times in our
annual general meetings. But in our October 2005 reconvened annual general
meeting, an unprecedented large number of members voted overwhelmingly to
maintain the scale fees and prohibit discounts which also means prohibiting
overcharging and undercutting.
I believe that was a wise decision by the Bar after looking
at the effects on those countries which have abolished scale fees. The Malaysian
Bar’s decision was obviously based on the interest of both the public and the
legal profession.
The report is prepared by the deputy chairman of the
Conveyancing Practice Committee, Bar Council, Malaysia
www.malaysianbar.org.my
Note: This column is brought to you by the Malaysian Bar
Council for your information only. It does not constitute legal advice. You
should therefore seek professional legal advice for your specific needs. Neither
the Malaysian Bar nor the Sun Media Corp Sdn Bhd shall be liable to any reader
who suffers losses as a result of relying on this column.
Comments () |
|
|
|
|
|