Lawyer goes missing

.... (probably) with 6 million (probably), according to the Straits Times.

Another case where there is a breach of trust over the proceeds of a property transaction.

Last time these cases were hardly heard of.

Lawyers were only allowed to charge a certain rate for property matters.

In 2003, these scale fees were cut.

There was "liberalisation" of the legal sector.

Then the fixed scale fee became a recommended scale.

Then the competition started. What was recommended was what it was said to be - just a recommendation.

Then in a dog eat dog world, costs were slashed.

Consumers celebrate.

Banks. Insurance Companies. Had boards of law firms where you can go to for 'cheaper' real estate solutions.

Consumers, estate agents, banks, insurance agents, celebrated.

Then the cases started.

4 million. 10 million. 6 million

Then there were more rules.

To ensure internal compliance vis-a-vis partners and book-keepers.

Each time they were proven wrong.

I think they were too liberal with the liberalisation.

Maybe there should be a minimum charge per property transaction.


And if you read the ST report you might see there are two schools of thought.

Asked if the new rules needed more teeth in light of the latest incident, lawyer Montague Choy said: 'You may change the rules... but then someone might show up to work around whatever's new in place to the point where there are so many rules that it becomes not commercially viable to operate.

'I do not think the problem is with the rules.'

Lawyer Amolat Singh said the case could trigger a move for clients' deposits to be held by a separate stakeholder, rather than by lawyers.