Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
If you can't see a problem with hollowing out of the existing pool of local litigators and inability to replenish the next gen of litigators because there's no market for it, then you need to come down from your ivory tower. Access to justice is very important not only to the common man, but the typical Singapore local corporate.
I have no skin in this as I'm in-house counsel and we regularly instruct a variety of firms on the corporate panel. Cost control is my priority. Most of our disputes are not bet the company type, and even if we instruct B4, we push their rates down to mid-tier levels because we're not paying SC rates to deal with a simple $2M performance bond case.
|
If there is "no market" for a service like you claim, or if the market refuses to pay the fees that the workers who are capable of doing those jobs wish to charge, then those workers *should* switch jobs to where their services are more highly valued. That's exactly how the free market is supposed to work, so where's the problem?
If this means that the litigation industry is hollowed out at the mid to low-end, then so be it. It simply means that litigation is an economically inefficient way of resolving low-value disputes, and it is right that society as whole should find cheaper ways to deal with such disputes (e.g. mediation, less reliance on adversarial procedures), which is exactly what the govt is trying to do.