|
In face of increasing complaints about lawyers' exorbitant charges, this city has issued guidelines on attorney fees, setting the upper limit at 3,000 yuan (US$360) per hour.
The guidelines, jointly worked out by the Shanghai Municipal Judicial Bureau and the Price Bureau, aims to standardize the city's legal counsel market and make attorney fees transparent.
It has stirred up heated debates among lawyers as well as local citizens.
"Putting forward such a standard is running against the international trend," said Wu Dong, a lawyer with M & A Law Firm, whose viewpoint is shared by most local attorneys.
The attorney fees should be determined by the market instead of government orders, Wu said.
"On one hand, officials are saying that local law firms should merge with the outside world, but on the other hand, they're putting forward a standard that almost no foreign countries have," Wu said. "Cases are different from one to another, and the quality of lawyers is also different. Setting such an upper limit does no good to the development of the trade."
According to the Contract Law, if a lawyer and client sign a payment contract, only State laws can influence its effectiveness.
"A standard that cannot be called a law nor a regulation doesn't have legal force," Wu said.
It has now been categorized as a "dormant" standard by local lawyers. When the Price Bureau requires all law firms to submit their quotation forms for a check, many just turn a deaf ear.
Another point arousing heated disputes is the imbalance between the two charging methods involved in the new standard: the time wage and piece rate wage.
For a criminal case in the investigation period, the upper limit is 2,000 yuan (US$240) each. But if taking the time wage standard, the lawyer can get at least 20,000 yuan (US$1,205) for the case - 3,000 yuan (US$360) per hour.
"The sharp contrast may well kick off a new round of lifting of attorney fees," said Wang Junmin, professor at East China University of Politics & Law.
On this issue, the Shanghai Bar Association sides with the lawyers, holding that the counsel fee should be determined by the market, while some government officials have a different say.
Since the city's judicial system and the trade code of lawyers are still far from mature, it is necessary to issue such a temporary standard as a guidance, said an official with the Shanghai Municipal Judicial Bureau.
Many local residents find the upper limit still too expensive.
"The high cost of hiring a lawyer keeps many ordinary residents from doing so," said Zhu Yungeng, a retired worker.
Many people may just choose to handle the problem themselves or bribe officials with influence, which would ultimately degenerate the country's legal environment.
"Setting a limit can prohibit some bad lawyers from asking exorbitant prices," Zhu said.
But many lawyers said a good attorney would determine the charge based on labour. The cost of the intensive efforts required in some cases far exceeds the amount the standard allows, the lawyers said.
Poor people may seek free services from law firms, the lawyers said.
(China Daily February 19, 2002)
|
