Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

KUALA LUMPUR: In a bid to further improve working relations with the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association (REHDA), members of the Bar Council Conveyancing Practice Committee (CPC) and the Solicitors’ Remuneration Enforcement Committee (SREC) met with REHDA representatives at its new office premises in Kelana Jaya last Thursday.

The Bar Council delegation was made up of Roger Tan, Chairman of the CPC, Andrew Wong, Deputy Chair, Tony Woon, a past CPC Chair, Ong Siew Wan, Deputy Chair of SREC and Rohani Adnan, Head of the Conveyancing Practice Department while REHDA was represented by its President, Ng Seing Liong, National Treasurer, Muztaza Hj. Mohamad and Executive Director, Kuai Heng.

The meeting was chaired by Ng who welcomed the Bar Council representatives and thanked Tan for arranging the meeting. He indicated that the recent Malaysian Law Conference (MLC) organised by the Bar Council, particularly the session that was jointly organised by the Bar Council and REHDA was good for both the Bar Council and REHDA as it showed that despite our differences, both bodies were still in a position to negotiate with regard to the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005 (SRO 2005) and the “no-discount” rule.

Ng added that the Chief Secretary of Government had asked for REHDA to meet with the Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM) to convene a meeting of the Solicitors’ Cost Committee (SCM) to hear representations from REHDA with regard to the SRO 2005 and the “no-discount” rule. REHDA’s view is that having different rates of fees under the SRO based on the purchase prices of the properties bought from developers, when the work involved is the same and not allowing discounts is against the principles of natural justice. They felt that guidelines on how to charge and fixing a cap for fees would be better. Fees below the cap should be market driven.

Tan thanked REHDA for meeting the Bar's representatives and said that the Bar Council was grateful to REHDA for co-organising one of the sessions of the MLC as it showed that there was still room for discussion. He said that the issue of the no-discount rule had been raised several times at Annual General Meetings (AGM) of the Bar and every time the general body had decided that the rule should remain. The Bar Council’s stand is that to maintain the rule, it must be enforced and by resolution of the Bar, the Bar Council is bound to enforce the rule.

Tan added as it was pointless to go through the arguments for and against the rule since both parties already knew each other's position well, it would be good if the Bar Council and REHDA could meet eye to eye on at least a scale which would be reasonable and acceptable to both parties. In fact, Tan said this would not have become an issue if not for the current trend of the developers paying the fees of the purchaser's solicitors.

Tan stressed that lawyers are not commodities and they belong to a noble profession which is governed by rules and ethics. Unfortunately, due to either survival or self-interest or both, some lawyers were prepared to stoop very low to undercut their fellow members of the Bar, whilst acknowledging that majority of them were at the mercies of the 'big time' developers. Yet, Tan added that there are also established developers who pay the fees according to scale.

Tan went on to say that some lawyers were even prepared to give discounts as much as 80% off the scale fees, and that REHDA's argument that legal fees should be market driven was wrong because the developers were doing this solely for their own interest in order to procure more sales at the lawyers' expense. Tan said he hoped that the developers could appreciate the role of the Bar in the society and the many public stands which the Bar has taken on various issues. All these, Tan explained, go to show that we are a noble profession and our members are required to conduct themselves according to professional standards and ethics.

Tan explained that what these 'big time' developers and errant lawyers have done is extremely unfair to honest and upright lawyers who observe the rule. Some of these lawyers are now virtually out of any conveyancing work, said Tan.

Therefore in an attempt to resolve this issue, Tan said the meeting was to enquire from REHDA what would be acceptable rates for purchase transactions from developers so that both bodies could come to a compromise and subsequently make joint representations to the SCC in the interests of all parties concerned. What is important to the Bar is that professionalism must be maintained at all times. However, the danger with guidelines, Tan said, is that despite the discount being capped, there will still be lawyers who will give higher discounts. Once this scale is agreed, Tan said the Bar Council hopes REHDA will help impress upon its members to follow the scale.

After some discussion, both parties agreed to look at a further reduction on scale fees with regard to lawyers who are acting for developers and handling bulk work from a housing development just as in the case of leases and tenancies where the solicitor acts for the landlord in relation to more that 10 units of premises being let.

Tan then requested REHDA to put up the proposal before their next EXCO meeting on January 24, 2008 and revert to the Bar Council on the decision by February 2008.

The Bar Council will then request the CJM to convene a meeting of the SCC to hear joint representations from both bodies with a view to amending the SRO 2005 to insert the amendments if later agreed upon.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed