| Sub-Committee to look at Solicitors' Account Rules 1990 |
|
|
|
| Friday, 15 June 2007 12:59pm | |
|
The sub-committee will be headed by CPC member, Penang lawyer Bernard Kok. The other sub-committee members are: Cheong Yoke Ping (CPC); James Wong (CPC); Dennis Appaduray (LPC); Iruthaya Raj (LPC) and Nicholas Chang (LPC). The sub-committee has been asked to complete its report within three weeks before recommendations are made to the Bar Council to amend the 1990 Rules pursuant to section 78 of the Legal Profession Act 1976. Among the areas being looked at include: • PROHIBITING lawyers from issuing cash or bearer
cheques or drawing money from their clients’ accounts via ATMs or online banking
services; Comments (8)
![]()
sub committee to look at Solicitor Account Rules
written by Avinder Singh Gill, Friday, June 15 2007 01:47 pm
Solicitors' Account Rules
written by Lawrence Teh, Friday, June 15 2007 04:30 pm
As a sole proprietor I am most appalled that anybody in the committee could even think about the proposition to have sole proprietor checked by a book-keeper.
Solicitors Account Rules 1990
written by Yeong Buang Leng, Friday, June 15 2007 04:37 pm
Discussions on two signature rule must be handled with utmost care. Too much exaggeration on this subject (even though it does not materialise at end of the day) could jeopardise public confidence on sole-prorietorship firm and consequently affect rice-bowls of many sole-proprietors.
Thank you
written by Bernard Kok, Friday, June 15 2007 05:05 pm
Thank you for your comments and views which are indeed very relevant to the sub-committee. We will certainly take into consideration your views before putting up our recommendation to the Bar Council.
MERIT IN RHETORICAL QUESTION
written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, Friday, June 15 2007 05:49 pm
My dear Bernard Kok
Solicitors Account Rules
written by Rishwant Singh, Friday, June 15 2007 06:13 pm
I get the impression that this is a result of us trying to learn from the experience of the legal profession in another jurisdiction: Singapore. The new rules in Singapore have come out and if you take a cursory look at it, some of the areas of review here in Malaysia were adopted in Singapore.
Composition of Sub-Committee
written by Ng Hong Chai, Friday, June 15 2007 11:51 pm
Do we have anyone in the sub-committee who is a sole proprietor? If not, may I humbly suggest that at least one be co-opted to help the sub-committee appreciate the problems be faced by sole-proprietors which may not be appreciated by partnership solicitors. Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|



























I don't think that a sole proprietor Solicitor should be made to hire a bookkeeper to comply with the two signatory rule. This is simply offensive. Why should I hire someone to check me?
First of all this would offend the LPA; 2ndly this would only mean that we can't trust ourselves.
Partnerships have two more signatory rules for purposes of contractual relations between the partners.
Your suggestion seems to stifle us. I know that you are looking at it from the point of view of security and safeguards but what assurances can you give that a bookkeeper employed to comply with the two signatory rule will not work with the solicitor concerned to commit CBT, if at all.
This is not going to solve the problem, if at all there is a problem.
Anyways could you let us have the statistics of cases involving Sole Proprietors who have committed CBT or fiddled with their Client's accounts.
BTW is this a practice in other jurisdictions?
Avinder Singh Gill