Lawyer Salary

any litigators read the media coverage of Lim Tean's XX?

what are ur views?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

lmao

so its true that lawyers don't have commercial sense.

this guys is trying to do SEO, not ask for free legal advice.

just lmao

More like a lazy lawyer trying to get spoonfed on a client file

Originally Posted by Unregistered

More like a lazy lawyer trying to get spoonfed on a client file

another one with no commercial sense.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

any litigators read the media coverage of Lim Tean's XX?

what are ur views?

questionable decision not to put his client on the stand.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

questionable decision not to put his client on the stand.

U also have no commercial sense

Originally Posted by Unregistered

any litigators read the media coverage of Lim Tean's XX?

what are ur views?

It's political theatre at its finest (and most ridiculous). Think LT thought that the case was totally unwinnable, so he decided to use the case to try and embarrass LHL, which is why his line of questioning was along the lines of "this is politically motivated" as opposed to proving that no defamation had occurred.

Apparently, LT submitted that there was no case to answer (meaning that you refuse to submit a defence on the grounds that the case has completely no merit and cannot be proven). Most litigators know that "no case to answer" is rarely used, because it's generally used when someone has filed a frivolous lawsuit (with absolutely no legal merit). However, if the other side can make out the basic elements of the case, you're pretty much screwed because you didn't submit a defence at all.

I think it's a good political strategy - although a really bad legal one for Leong.

On LT's side, he gets to go face-to-face with LHL, and try to embarrass him (or trick him into stating that the lawsuit was political). On the other hand, he can "concede" because there isn't really a good defence anyway, but he can save face and say that he refused to play ball with the "corrupt" courts (galvanising his supporters to complain about the unfairness of the situation).

I'm not going to go into the merits of the lawsuit (that's for the Courts to decide), but honestly, Leong doesn't stand much of a chance in the lawsuit because of LT's submission of no case to answer (even if Leong did indeed have a strong defence - none was put forth).

please lah you got more chance of winning toto than defeating DS + LHL in a freaking defamation suit. the two of them literally defined defamation in sg, you can't name a more iconic duo for the tort

its just a chance for lt to cross lhl and lt knows it. under what other setting can u go 1 on 1 with lhl? the case was never intended to be won

Originally Posted by Unregistered

please lah you got more chance of winning toto than defeating DS + LHL in a freaking defamation suit. the two of them literally defined defamation in sg, you can't name a more iconic duo for the tort

its just a chance for lt to cross lhl and lt knows it. under what other setting can u go 1 on 1 with lhl? the case was never intended to be won

Ds trawl this forum n whack u then u know

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's political theatre at its finest (and most ridiculous). Think LT thought that the case was totally unwinnable, so he decided to use the case to try and embarrass LHL, which is why his line of questioning was along the lines of "this is politically motivated" as opposed to proving that no defamation had occurred.

Apparently, LT submitted that there was no case to answer (meaning that you refuse to submit a defence on the grounds that the case has completely no merit and cannot be proven). Most litigators know that "no case to answer" is rarely used, because it's generally used when someone has filed a frivolous lawsuit (with absolutely no legal merit). However, if the other side can make out the basic elements of the case, you're pretty much screwed because you didn't submit a defence at all.

I think it's a good political strategy - although a really bad legal one for Leong.

On LT's side, he gets to go face-to-face with LHL, and try to embarrass him (or trick him into stating that the lawsuit was political). On the other hand, he can "concede" because there isn't really a good defence anyway, but he can save face and say that he refused to play ball with the "corrupt" courts (galvanising his supporters to complain about the unfairness of the situation).

I'm not going to go into the merits of the lawsuit (that's for the Courts to decide), but honestly, Leong doesn't stand much of a chance in the lawsuit because of LT's submission of no case to answer (even if Leong did indeed have a strong defence - none was put forth).

What a load of bull from a chao gei kiang. U dont want to go into merits cos for courts to decide. Then u go into politics and motivations cos u r cabinet? Ur client ask u for merits advice u say u cant go into merits cos u not the court?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What a load of bull from a chao gei kiang. U dont want to go into merits cos for courts to decide. Then u go into politics and motivations cos u r cabinet? Ur client ask u for merits advice u say u cant go into merits cos u not the court?

does sub judice apply to civil proceedings?