Free legal fees 
		misleading
      NST-PROP 
		14/09/2001 By Nicholas Mun  
       
      PROPERTY development is a competitive game and unfortunately for the 
      industry, it can no longer just build and wait for the buyers to come like 
      they did in the past. 
       
      Choice is in abundance now and the buying process has as a result slowed, 
      tying up developers' cash in the bricks and mortar of their projects. To 
      stimulate sales, industry players are adopting strategies to make the 
      buying process as financially painless as possible for prospective buyers. 
       
      One such strategy that has emerged is where developers proclaim free or 
      subsidised legal fees for those who purchase their properties. The 
      question is: are buyers really enjoying a waiver of such fees? 
       
      According to Bar Council chairman Mah Weng Kwai, such a strategy may be a 
      gimmick to generate sales. "Such an offer of `free' or `subsidised legal 
      fees' is misleading as it may not represent the actual situation," said 
      Mah. 
       
      "The solicitors on the developer's panel may be acting for it (the 
      developer) and not the buyer. So the fees due are to be paid by the 
      developer and not the purchaser. Therefore there is nothing free about it 
      as far as the buyer is concerned. It can only be considered free if the 
      buyer receives legal representation and does not have to pay for it." 
       
      The concern of the Bar Council is not misplaced. An industry source who 
      wished to remain anonymous admitted that such strategies are indeed 
      gimmicks to entice buyers. 
       
      "The solicitors on the developer's panel do not represent the buyers and 
      the fees involved is a matter to be resolved between them and the 
      developer. In fact, buyers are often required by such solicitors to sign a 
      document stating that he or she (the solicitor) is acting for the 
      developer," he explained. 
       
      Such documents may in fact be an attempt by solicitors to come within the 
      proviso of section 84 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976. "The general rule 
      (of section 84) is that the developer and purchaser should each engage 
      their own solicitors," Mah said.  
       
      "But where the purchaser is unrepresented, the solicitor in question 
      should secure a written certificate from the buyer confirming the fact 
      that he or she does not intend to engage a solicitor to scrutinise the 
      agreement," he explained of the proviso. 
       
      Mah said when a developer assembles a panel of solicitors for the 
      convenience of its buyers, it should be made clear at the outset that the 
      solicitor will be representing the buyer though the fees will be paid by 
      the developer. However, this is rarely the case.  
       
      "In most cases, panel solicitors have represented the developer in other 
      matters. Some may even have represented the developer in the acquisition 
      of the land upon which the development is being conducted, its conversion 
      and payment of the relevant premiums and maybe even the eviction of  
      squatters as well," Mah said. 
       
      The industry source confirmed that it is a norm for panel solicitors to 
      have represented the developer in other matters. Mah explained that for 
      the offer of "free legal fees" to be really that and nothing else, the 
      solicitor in question must be prepared to give the purchaser written 
      confirmation that he or she is indeed acting for the purchaser. 
       
      This need for legal representation is understandably downplayed in the 
      industry. The industry source said off-the-plan sales of residential 
      properties come within the standard sale and purchase agreements of the 
      Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act, 1996, which neither party 
      is entitled to depart from. Under such circumstances, the industry quite 
      obviously takes the view that such arrangements represent a cost-saving to 
      the purchaser. 
       
      However, Mah explained that the rationale for alerting prospective
      buyers about this is not to make purchasing more difficult or expensive.
  
      "Prospective buyers need to be made aware of the fact that an offer of
      free legal fees may not be a true reflection of the situation. So that
      which is touted as free may not be so after all as the buyer receives no
      legal representation.
  
      "Purchasing a house is a big investment and buyers should make a
      provision for legal fees so that they receive legal advice on the
      transaction," he added.
  
      Buyers who appoint their own solicitors also avoid problems of conflict
      of interest that usually arise when there is only one solicitor for the
      transaction. The initial cost-savings of buyers may well be offset by
      problems that could arise due to conflict of interest.
  
      Mah highlighted the seriousness of the problem in the profession where
      lawyers will be subject to a conflict of interest provision in their
      insurance coverage as of next year. This could as much as triple the
      policy's excess in the event of conflict of interest claims. The new
      provision is being introduced due to the high number of such claims, which
      make up 40 per cent of the total claims made against lawyers.
  |