Sir,

The President’s Message entitled ‘Quality v Price’ in the June issue was both enlightening and worrying. The adverse impact of the loss of our scale fees system in conveyancing over the past 12 years has confirmed my worst fears.

In 1996, I had the honour of receiving the support from the majority of our profession in successfully opposing the Legal Services Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1996, introduced into the Legislative Council by the then Government, which would have made any scale fees unlawful. However, because of the lack of unity in our profession, the Government, despite its defeat, was able to make use of section 56 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) to effectively abolish the then scale fees system which had worked well for many decades. The system had ensured conveyancing work of a high quality which benefited both our clients and our profession through competition on the basis of quality of services rather than the amount of fees.

I hope the able younger members of our profession will support the President’s recommendations and also consider what positive steps can still be adopted to remedy the situation. One suggestion is for our Law Society to propose a set of ‘Recommended Fees’ which will be fair to both the community and our profession and which will hopefully be adopted by most, if not all, law firms even if only as a guideline. If estate agents can voluntarily adopt a system of fees even higher than what we trained professionals can charge, our profession should have the calibre to do at least the same.

The ultimate objectives should be a system which can ensure that: (a) our conveyancing work be of high quality so that our clients’ interests are protected; (b) our Professional Indemnity Fund will not be exhausted by claims for shoddy work and our insurance costs will not become prohibitive; (c) fair fees be paid to the profession; and (d) our professional dignity is maintained.

Lastly, may I again thank the Law Society and my professional brothers and sisters for the enthusiastic support I had then received, especially to those who had made generous donations to the cause, and to those who had served on the then Committee which led to the defeat of the Government’s proposals the effect of which would have rendered even the above proposal of ‘Recommended Fees’ unlawful.

Winston KS Chu
Senior Consultant
Winston Chu & Company