Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don’t intend to pay. As you’ve alluded to, they are welcome to sue for a couple hundred bucks.

did u get the letter too, or is this just bravado talk?

they went to the effort of sending via registered mail so it seems to me that they are really intent on chasing folks down.

really don't want to pay (what "arrears" are there if there has been no service provided?) but maybe not worth the battle. if a client wanted advice on this i'd say just pay.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

did u get the letter too, or is this just bravado talk?

they went to the effort of sending via registered mail so it seems to me that they are really intent on chasing folks down.

really don't want to pay (what "arrears" are there if there has been no service provided?) but maybe not worth the battle. if a client wanted advice on this i'd say just pay.

I think it’s the same as any other subscription based service providers. How would they qualify spending money to chase after a couple defaulters totalling a few thousand bucs?

But that is if you’re sure you won’t return to practice. otherwise it’ll be a conversation once you return.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why should we pay for a membership that's imposed on us with no way to withdraw? We don't derive any benefits from it.

Do you advise your clients to pay for things they don't get anything out of?

Talk cock. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to practise law.

Read the rules you daft cheapskate.

Members may apply for waiver of annual subscriptions under Rule 4(1) of the Singapore Academy of Law Rules if (for any period of not less than 12 months), they will:
(a) be continuously absent from Singapore;
(b) not be ordinarily resident or domiciled in Singapore;
(c) not be in the profession of law; or
(d) not be gainfully employed

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don’t intend to pay. As you’ve alluded to, they are welcome to sue for a couple hundred bucks.

Kumgong. This is SAL. Not some mama shop. The cost benefit analysis is very clear. Hire one law firm to do simple claims en masse and apply for summary judgement. How much only? Some more they can seek costs against you. You got no defence other than being a darling cheapskate. Easy and shut case.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Kumgong. This is SAL. Not some mama shop. The cost benefit analysis is very clear. Hire one law firm to do simple claims en masse and apply for summary judgement. How much only? Some more they can seek costs against you. You got no defence other than being a darling cheapskate. Easy and shut case.

I find it hard to believe that they will go to such lengths. It will foster so much discontent especially amongst the in-house community. I hope it’s only posturing.

Has anyone successfully applied for a waiver of membership fees before? The grounds are quite narrow.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I find it hard to believe that they will go to such lengths. It will foster so much discontent especially amongst the in-house community. I hope it’s only posturing.

Has anyone successfully applied for a waiver of membership fees before? The grounds are quite narrow.

It’s a lawful debt.

They’ve already gone to the lengths of sending letters of demand.

SILE fostered so much discontent amongst the Part B candidates too, but the power imbalance means they can’t do much about it.

The same applies here with SAL and in-house practitioners. Discontent is the least of their worries. SAL has even more to lose with the Auditor-General lurking at the sidelines. SAL has a duty to collect these debts.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Talk cock. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to practise law.

Read the rules you daft cheapskate.

Members may apply for waiver of annual subscriptions under Rule 4(1) of the Singapore Academy of Law Rules if (for any period of not less than 12 months), they will:
(a) be continuously absent from Singapore;
(b) not be ordinarily resident or domiciled in Singapore;
(c) not be in the profession of law; or
(d) not be gainfully employed

You are the daft one. We know all these. You think people haven't tried to apply for waiver over the years? Read what the definition of "profession of law" is in the SAL Rules. It includes inhouse counsel.

We are taking issue with the principle of forcing inhouse counsel to remain as SAL members and/or charging them SAL fees, when most inhousers have absolutely nothing to do with SAL or its services. Not even the most tenuous use of their services.

If my external counsel gave me this kind of kum gong advice, I would fire the firm straight away.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Kumgong. This is SAL. Not some mama shop. The cost benefit analysis is very clear. Hire one law firm to do simple claims en masse and apply for summary judgement. How much only? Some more they can seek costs against you. You got no defence other than being a darling cheapskate. Easy and shut case.

What a profound analysis! Thank you for such insight would’ve never thought of it in this manner at all. Thought provoking indeed.

LOL at all the in-house counsel complaining about SAL fees. Just pay lah. Left practice all no money liao is it?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL at all the in-house counsel complaining about SAL fees. Just pay lah. Left practice all no money liao is it?

Need to feed mortgage for 2nd property bro