This letter was first published in the Straits Times forum page on 29 April 2003.

I refer to the article ‘Lawyers who undercut and do bulk deals may be touting’ (ST, 24 March 2003) and the letter from Case President Yeo Guat Kwang, ‘Lawyers should be free to cut, waive fees’ (ST, 31 March 2003).

One reason why the Law Society has published guidelines on conveyancing fees is to inform consumers of the price levels below which there may be a risk to consumers of a compromise in professional standards. Unlike goods which consumers purchase frequently, a consumer may buy a house once in ten years. A consumer can learn from experience when he buys a discounted shirt and finds it doesn’t last the first laundry wash. He can quickly get an idea as to what the right price should be for a shirt that meets his needs. But he will not have the benefit of experience when choosing a lawyer to handle his conveyancing. It may well be his first experience of a lawyer. But the effect on him of a badly handled conveyance will be a great deal more severe than a shirt that fades. Hence, the Law Society’s guidelines. The consumer remains free to negotiate a lower price, but will do so in the knowledge that the fee level is below what the Law Society recommends, and so will have to consider what level of service, quality and professional input he can expect to receive. The guidelines are, after all, just that: guidelines.

The Law Society has also addressed a different problem through its referral code that binds all lawyers. A lawyer who enters into an agreement with a bank that provides for referrals to him of the bank’s customers must ensure that his ability to represent the best interests of the customer is not affected and that the customer is aware that he can go to another lawyer if he so chooses.

These are simple measures that safeguard the consumer in a market where they may not have perfect information. They protect freedom of choice, properly understood.

Arfat Selvam
President
The Law Society of Singapore