Slides for paper presented at the National Case Study Conference (NCSC) 2013 in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

1. Discount on Legal Services for
Noncontentious Matters in
Peninsular Malaysia
Kevin Koo Seng Kiat
Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya
kevinkoosk@gmail.com
Professor Dr Syed Omar Syed Agil
Tun Abdul Razak School of Government,
Universiti Tun Abdul Razak
syedomar@unirazak.edu.my

2. Scene: Lawyer's Office

3. Documents are signed....

4. Bill is Presented...

5. Client asks for discount

6. No Discount Rule

7. Conveyancing scale fees

8. Enforcement Committee

9. REHDA

10. Support from Professional Bodies

11. Members divided over the issue

12. Banks dictating legal fees

13. Enforcement problems

14. Conveyancing Work

15. Looks simple but isn't...

16. Creative Discounting

17. Debate continues...

19. One day... Discounts = Legal?

20. A Competitive Industry...

21. Meanwhile, in Singapore...

22. Epilogue

23. Questions

24. Q1
What economics theories can you use to
describe the discounting behaviour in the legal
industry?
You may draw on other fields as well to justify
your answer.

25. Q2
What factors drive demand and supply of legal
services for non-contentious matters?

26. Q3
REHDA stated that abolishing SRO scale fees
will stimulate the real estate market.
How far is the statement true or untrue? Should
lawyers care?

27. Q4
Why do you think law firms engage in
discounting behaviour when there are rules
prohibiting it?
Would law firms that discount be better off in the
long term?

28. Q5
What would be the best outcome for the Bar
Council to pursue for its members in the
longterm and how can the Bar Council achieve
it?

29. Q6
Imagine there are only two law firms in the
market. Syarifah's firm resolves not to give
discount to its clients. Ali's firm sometimes gives
discount to its clients.
How does the “prisoner's dilemma” apply to this
situation? How does the “prisoner's dilemma”
apply to the legal industry in the long run?

30. Q7
As a potential client of a law firm, you are asked
whether you would be willing to pay full scale
fees for services rendered by the law firm.
Knowing that your friends can introduce other
law firms that give discount, what would be the
right thing to say and do?

31. Q8
Syarifah's friend, Amanda, buys an expensive house by the
seaside and gets Syarifah's law firm to handle the transaction.
If Syarifah's law firm gives Amanda a 30% discount on legal
fees, what kind of behaviour can Syarifah expect to see from
Amanda in the future?
How can Syarifah refuse to give Amanda discount in the future?

32. Q9
What kind of short-term and long-term strategies
should law firms adopt in this scenario?
How can the government play a role in helping
law firms achieve their goals?

33. Q10
In 2006, various professional bodies supported
the No-Discount Rule. Is the No-Discount Rule
still relevant?
How can these professional bodies help the Bar
Council's strategic goals today?

34. Q11
On 8th March 2012, the Borneo Post reported,
“Members of the Advocates Association of Sarawak Bars filed a lawsuit against a Malaysian
bank for imposing solicitor fees that are lower than the standardised scale prescribed under the
Schedule of Advocates. Plaintiff Khairil Azmi Mohd Hasbie, representing the association, was
suing as a member as well as president. The suit was filed against the bank as the only
defendant. The association received complaints from members that fees imposed by the bank
were not in accordance with the association’s charging system. ... the plaintiff is seeking
declaration from the court that the defendant’s standardised scales for solicitors — which
contravened the Advocates Remuneration Rules 1988 of Sarawak (as amended) made under the
Advocates’ Ordinance Chapt 110) of Sarawak — was ‘illegal, null and void’. They were also
seeking a declaration that it is ‘illegal’ to require or induce or aid or abet an advocate to give
discount for services rendered, or for future services in contravention of the Advocates
Remuneration Rule 1988 of Sarawak (amended), as well as the costs.”

35. Q11 (cont)
Imagine that you are engaged by the defendant
bank to advise on the right thing to do.
What would you advise the bank to do?