|
The Sunday Star
(Used by permission)
by Roger Tan, Chair, Conveyancing Practice Committee,
Ng Kong Peng, Chair, Legal Profession Committee,
Bar Council, Malaysia
WE REFER to the letter “Bar Council must act against tardy lawyers” (The Star,
June 20) by Darshan Singh, National Consumer Complaints Centre.
Firstly, delays in the completion of sale and purchase transactions could be due
to many factors, and are not necessarily the fault of lawyers or developers.
Delays could also be due to time taken by a financier in releasing the loan sum
as well as tardiness on the part of the purchaser in complying with the sale,
purchase and financing requirements.
Secondly, the common completion period is 3+1 (months) and not 2+1 (months).
If it is a conditional agreement, the three months do not start to run until the
conditions precedent have been fulfilled.
In fact, the period of completion is a matter for the parties to negotiate and
agree upon, and it is not proper for the Bar Council to intervene in and
restrict the parties’ freedom to contract.
Thirdly, it is not true that consumers are not allowed to choose their own
lawyers.
In this respect, the Bar Council has done much and taken great pains on
countless occasions to educate consumers on their right to choose their own
lawyer and to have separate legal representation.
However, we regret to note that consumers are more attracted by free legal
packages and in doing so, they have unwittingly given up their right to choose
their own lawyers. This is one area we hope Darshan’s organisation can help
create awareness among the public.
As regards the issue of excessive contingency fees, the Bar Council has taken
cognisance of the matter and is presently looking into the possibility of
allowing charging of contingency fees but on a regulated basis.
The Ad-Hoc Committee to review the Legal Profession Act and the Legal Profession
Committee of the Bar Council have been assigned the task of studying the matter
and proposing the necessary measures to regulate the imposition of contingency
fees.
The requirement for lawyers to enter into a contingency fees agreement before
contingency fees could be imposed is one of the measures proposed.
Such an agreement is required to be in writing in a format prescribed by the Bar
Council incorporating a number of safeguards to protect the interests of the
clients.
It is also proposed that there be an upper limit cap to the amount of
contingency fees chargeable.
The maximum amount presently being considered is an amount not exceeding 25% of
the amount awarded to the client in the proceedings concerned.
The Bar Council wishes to assure the public that it is always endeavouring to
maintain and protect the standards of conduct of the legal profession whilst at
the same protecting the public interest in all matters pertaining to the law.
Comments () |
|
|
|
|
|
