Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Very well said.

Can a lawyer who is supposed to uphold rule of law resort to trial by internet with no named witnesses and no evidence? Is that not behaviour unbecoming of an advocate and solicitor. Shouldnt the law society look at CY's behaviour?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Can a lawyer who is supposed to uphold rule of law resort to trial by internet with no named witnesses and no evidence? Is that not behaviour unbecoming of an advocate and solicitor. Shouldnt the law society look at CY's behaviour?

And talking like a gangster challenging people to sue. And then making comments on race traitor. N majority of people here presumably lawyers support this mob culture?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Can a lawyer who is supposed to uphold rule of law resort to trial by internet with no named witnesses and no evidence? Is that not behaviour unbecoming of an advocate and solicitor. Shouldnt the law society look at CY's behaviour?

LawSoc got bigger fish to fry tbh. Clients' monies, solicitors accounts, etc all more important than prima facie eccentricity. You say that like as though every profession doesn't have its own set of eccentrics. If they go after CY, they have to go after a whole other bunch of lawyers as well. You know who lah.

Also not like the persons he's going after (1) don't have recourse and (2) don't know how to avail themselves of said recourse. Anything they do for themselves is more appropriate considering they were the ones wronged to begin with.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LawSoc got bigger fish to fry tbh. Clients' monies, solicitors accounts, etc all more important than prima facie eccentricity. You say that like as though every profession doesn't have its own set of eccentrics. If they go after CY, they have to go after a whole other bunch of lawyers as well. You know who lah.

Also not like the persons he's going after (1) don't have recourse and (2) don't know how to avail themselves of said recourse. Anything they do for themselves is more appropriate considering they were the ones wronged to begin with.

Eccentricity is no defence to defamation doxxing n racism

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Eccentricity is no defence to defamation doxxing n racism

yes but lawsoc proceedings do not contemplate defamation doxxing n racism, the proper plaintiff in each being ir n the agc respectively

Originally Posted by Unregistered

yes but lawsoc proceedings do not contemplate defamation doxxing n racism, the proper plaintiff in each being ir n the agc respectively

Is a defamatory mob racist becoming of an advocate n solicitor?

There r lawyers fined by law soc for speeding drink driving etc

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Let me tell you what's going to happen.

1. No "victims" will make any police report because none of these baseless allegations are true.
2. CY has (temporarily) succeeded in disrupting the life and career of an innocent man
3. IR is playing the waiting game and letting the social media furor die down like it should in the next few days or weeks
4. IR will then hit CY with a defamation suit to vindicate his name and simultaneously file a police report for CY's unfounded attacks wrt the racial angle.
5. CY will pay damages through his nose. That's the price to pay for an unfounded hit job by a rabidly anti-PAP individual

Those of you virtue signalling about #metoo #methree, sorry to tell you but you are just enablers of mob rule and totally unfit to safeguard the administration of justice

Agree. As I pointed out earlier we shouldn't jump to conclusions without good or sufficient evidence. I don't fully agree with your style, but you are 100% right on substance. We can't subscribe to mob justice, we're lawyers

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is a defamatory mob racist becoming of an advocate n solicitor?

There r lawyers fined by law soc for speeding drink driving etc

convicted liao then lawsoc step in. if acquitted then what crime committed for lawsoc to investigate?

i dont think you are lawyer lol

Yes. Same for doctors. Have to be convicted before SMC will do their thing (fine, censure, suspension, etc.)

Only in exceptional cases will SMC intervene before a conviction is obtained - i.e. make the medical profession look super bad. But that is still up to SMC's discretion.

Imagine it's all the same for Law Society. That's what the poster above is saying. Need a court judgment saying A has defamed B, and not some layperson pointing finger and saying A has defamed B. Got judgment got talk. Not you, some random Tan Ah Kow, say got defamation means got defamation so Law Society must investigate. Mai luan lai.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes. Same for doctors. Have to be convicted before SMC will do their thing (fine, censure, suspension, etc.)

Only in exceptional cases will SMC intervene before a conviction is obtained - i.e. make the medical profession look super bad. But that is still up to SMC's discretion.

Imagine it's all the same for Law Society. That's what the poster above is saying. Need a court judgment saying A has defamed B, and not some layperson pointing finger and saying A has defamed B. Got judgment got talk. Not you, some random Tan Ah Kow, say got defamation means got defamation so Law Society must investigate. Mai luan lai.

Wah solid. Means all of us can be tan ah kow and luan luan say got this n that n bodaiji from law soc ah