5
Experience nowhere supports retention of scale fees
The Singaporean government believes that scale fees are anachronistic and should in time be abolished, the Deputy Law Officer of the Attorney General's Office, Mr Robert Allcock, told a Bills Committee of the Legislative Council today (Tuesday). One of the provisions of the Legal Services Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill which is being studied by LegCo is for abolition of scale fees for conveyancing work.
In his address to the Bills Committee, Mr Allcock pointed out that Singapore's Minister for Law, in answer to a parliamentary question in November 1995 has said he agreed in principle that a fixed scale was an anachronism in a free market economy such as Singapore's.
Although the Minister believed that there was merit in taking a gradual approach, he said that the complete abolition of scale fees was a matter of time, "and the legal profession should take this time to prepare itself for the free market ....."
Mr Allcock also noted that in England, the English Law Society did not even attempt to reintroduce scale fees when its Vice-President was Mr Robert Sayer. Mr Sayer recently came to Hong Kong to make a submission to the LegCo Bills Committee for retention of scale fees in Hong Kong.
The official position of the English Law Society set out in a letter to the Bills Committee does not describe the abolition of scale fees as a disaster. Instead, the letter merely states that "views differ as to whether or not the abolition of scale fees was on balance of benefit to the public," Mr Allcock said.
As for the experience of scale fees in Hong Kong, Mr Allcock dismissed claims that the Administration wants to compel solicitors to charge unreasonably low fees.
"After the abolition of scale fees, solicitors will be entitled to charge such sum as may be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
"This is the basis on which their fees are calculated for other non-contentious work, and that has not caused any problems," he said.
He also refuted allegations that price competition would lead to disastrous results, hurting the public interest; and that it was like planting a time bomb, since shoddy work would only show up after many years.