Page 280 - A Banker Down the Rabbit Hole

81. Application of learning -

Excessive bill of the lawyer

W e got an exorbitant bill of an Advocate appointed by one

of our lending banks. As per standard procedure of
transparency at Singapore, he had given the details how
the fee amount was arrived at.

I noticed that the fee was calculated on transaction amount of SGD 12
million, the total amount of our credit lines with that bank. The
transaction that he had handled was a mortgage of one property valued
at SGD 1 million only.

I observed that he should have computed his fee based on mortgage
value of this property only for SGD 1 million and not on full credit lines
as other advocates had taken fee already for other securities.

This time boss allowed me promptly to meet the advocate for
clarification. I met the advocate but he was adamant on the amount of
the bill. He further claimed that the amount had been approved by our
bank also. I contacted our bank and narrated our stand, advocate's stand
and his claim of the bank's approval of the bill. They assured to look into
the matter.

The bank came back to us saying that working should be based on SGD
1 million and they would speak to the advocate to revise the bill. We
got a revised bill for far lower amount that we paid.

The learning applied here worked again!

— z —

A Banker down the Rabbit Hole | 277