[0:00]Biggest misconception clients or people have of you as a lawyer. Ah, that they're out to suck their money. Today, we're joined by Ivan Lee, partner at PDLegal LLC, specializing in Civil and Commercial Litigation. Ivan has led numerous high-profile cases in Singapore's High Court and state courts, including in his very first year, a 10-day high court trial. A billion dollars today, tomorrow, would you still be a lawyer? Yes and no, and why? Um, I think I would. But welcome to the show, Ivan. Thank you, Jonathan, for having me. Okay, let's go straight into the questions and let's begin perhaps by understanding a bit about how you arrived here. So, what got you into law? Hm. Okay, so I'm not going to give you the typical interview answer. Yeah. I actually didn't know what to do. Okay. So, I was really conflicted between two choices, a business-related subject, because versatile degree, or law. Yes. Yep. Eventually, I started I ended up choosing law because I mean, I think it's been ingrained in me in a in a young age, because my uncle is quite an established lawyer.
[1:09]Wow. And I have very fond memories of going over to his house on Sundays and seeing him playing Diablo 2. And so, to me, it was you're clearly very successful and you have time to game. That's a career I want to be in. To be frank, I didn't find it to be my calling until I was about 4 months from being called. I see. Yeah. So, so maybe let's just very quickly just go into that a little bit. Sure. When you're 4 months away from qualifying as a lawyer, that's means getting called. What changed? Okay, so the thing was this thing called a part call, where the courts grant permission to certain uh law graduates who are going to be called to the bar soon, uh privileges to attend court by themselves. Certain conditions have to be met, but I met those conditions around 4 months before being called. And at that point, um, I was in a small law firm. You about five, five or so lawyers, very tightly knit, still my good friends to you today. Um, it was really deep in training. So, they would give you, assign you a case, you handle it yourself. You reach out to the seniors for guidance, but other than that, you're going to court and you're arguing yourself. Right, so at that point, terrifying experience going to court, uh, without even being a lawyer. First time in. Correct. Yeah. Right. So, terrifying at the start, but that also motivates you to learn about the case and make sure you don't make a fool of yourself. Yeah. Right. And from then on, it gave me attachment to the to the cases I was doing. I see. Right. I felt invested in it. The client trust me. We build a relationship there and then each time you go to court, it's like a fight. And also builds up your confidence. Yeah. And also your sense of fulfillment as well when you Fulfillment is the number one thing for me. I see. Right, because each each time you argue, it's like you're a boxer. You're training for a fight and you want to win. I see. Right. And that is that is really the fun of law. So, especially when the client I see. is on the same page as you, which is about you've done. I see. And that's particularly relevant for lawyers they call litigators. Yes. Is disputes. Because that is that is inherent in the actual Yeah, always involved in conflict. Yeah. Right. But I mean, I think, uh, well, I would say I think, uh, a mistaken belief is that litigators are generally only involved in fighting. Hm. I think it has evolved quite a bit. Now the court wants parties to settle even before bringing their case to trial. Right. And this is something I agree with, right. I think there are a lot more cost-effective approaches to resolving a dispute than taking it straight to court. Hm. Right. Um, I think you'll be aware not legal fees can rack up quite substantially. So, a good lawyer would be one who's very capable and willing and able to fight and fight very hard, but also pragmatic and prudent and far-sighted enough to say, perhaps, let's take an alternative route. Yes, I think a good lawyer should evaluate the case and start and have an idea of the likely eventual outcome. So that's already a very useful piece of information because there's I sense there's a there's a big misconception around the impression that good lawyers are the ones that fight and only want to fight. Hm.
[4:25]And the sense by comparison would be a lawyer who tells me as a prospective client or client that I shouldn't fight is a weak lawyer and therefore and a lawyer without confidence or who is incapable of fighting. Yes, I can get it quite a bit. You know, every time I advise settlement, the client sometimes asks, why aren't you winning in front of my case? Do you do not have any faith in the my case? I see. And I mean, what I tell them is, I mean, let's take an example, right? You're claiming a 100,000, and we're going to fight this case for the next one year, and your legal fees are going to be, let's say, 50,000. And that's only purely from a financial standpoint, when you factor in in costs. Exactly.
[5:07]18 months to recover this 50,000. Exactly. It might be worth a lot more your 18 months. So, I mean, I can write to the opponent. I can tell them, let's settle it now. I'll give a 50% discount. I see. Right. You save all the time, you save the legal fees and uncertainties from litigation. So that is, so I think that has, that has once and for all, I feel, at least, resolve this misunderstanding that a lawyer who proposes or is very keen to settle it in the interest of the client is not doing this out of weakness or laziness or any lack of confidence. Sometimes it is because it is the most prudent thing to do. Yeah, I mean, put it another way. If the client wants to engage me for an entire trial, I'll be happy to. Yeah. Right. But, I mean, most of the time, I mean, I'll say generally cases about 80% of them will settle at mediation anyway. Okay. So, we're getting into some a deeper and uh, I would say thicker areas of uh, of litigation, right? Where there there are terms being used that some people hearing them for the first time may not know what they mean. Okay, so let's start from the from ground zero. Okay. And today that we're talking about what they call civil litigation or claiming for sums of money, right? Yes. Uh, generally speaking. So, in Singapore, there are many different layers and levels of court. Okay. I understand there's a Magistrate's Court, there's a District Court, and then there's the High Court. But for people who are unaccustomed to this, what are the differences? Okay, so if we start from the very bottom, we have the small claims tribunal. So, that is for cases that are below $20,000, or if both parties agree, your claim can be up to $30,000. That means the amount that is being disputed and fought over is 20K and below. Yes. Correct. Okay. Small claims. Correct. The thing about small claims court is that lawyers are not allowed to participate. Not allowed to attend. So, that becomes a bit friendlier to people do have lawyers. small value cases, you can bring your cases there. Okay. That's why. Um, after that, we move on to the magistrates court. So, that would be cases that are under $60,000. $60 and below. 60 and below. Right. And then after that we move on to the district court, which is above 60 but below $250,000. Okay. And then we move on to the big brother, that's a High Court. Any amount above $250,000. Okay. Yeah. So, these are the three to four different levels. And is it something so simplistic in the sense that if I have a claim, I just look at how much is the amount in dispute and will automatically select which level I go to? Well, generally it is, but I mean, sometimes if you go to a lawyer, you might be able to claim more than you actually anticipated. Okay. Right. So, a rough guideline, if it falls within the the ranges I mentioned, that would be your most like your appropriate court. There are certain rules on which court you have to go to, but by far and large, those. Okay. So, one last question on this segregation of levels, first before we go into some other hypothetical scenario type questions. Would the level of the court automatically mean more legal fees as well and and or more complications and related to that, would that be a relevant consideration of factor for a person choosing which level to to have their case handled in? Oh, okay. So, I think the first thing we have to look at is cost. If you file a case in the High Court, your court fees are generally going to be more expensive. Okay, so maybe let's just slow down a little. Court fees and costs, for people hearing this for the first time, it's the same thing. Is it? So, okay, um, maybe from now on I'll say legal costs, which is the amount that you paid your lawyers. Your legal fees. Correct. Right. So, there's legal fees, and then there's also court fees, which is the amount you pay to the courts, doesn't go to the lawyers at all. I see. I see. Right. So, uh, for a filing in the High Court, you're usually looking at about 500 and up. $500. $500. And for, well, I mean, filing of documents is generally more expensive. I mean, about two months ago, I filed an affidavit that was $10,000. Just in terms of the filing. The calling fees. The calling fees. And so, these are administrative fees. Correct. Not the time that you spent to prepare this document.
[9:29]It's what the court system will charge to accept and and to have the documents filed. So as a general rule, the higher your claim amount, the more the court charges. And so, these are incidental costs already. They have nothing to do with your lawyer's work that will be embedded into your total bill. Yes. So, that is one way picking the right level is going to affect your your your case in terms of the spend. Definitely. Right. But in terms of the work that the lawyer does, is it automatically the case that a lawyer will have to spend more time working on a matter or doing things in a case that is in a higher level? Well, I would say generally, yes. I mean, the stakes are higher, um, and that usually warrants the lawyer being more careful, right? But I mean, there are certain cases where it's in the High Court, but it's a very straightforward case. Right. Oh, money pay money count cases, right? versus rendered, invoice is not paid. So, and no valid defense. So, that's a very good point that you touched on. So, it sounds like the the actual nature, level and size and scale of the complexity also matters. Not just how much is in dispute. It could be a $400,000 claim, but very straightforward and therefore not complex and therefore not that uh difficult to do in terms of the legal work. But it could be a $75,000 claim, but very complicated and therefore a lot of legal work and effort will have to go into it. Yes, and that's $75,000 example could be legal fees could be higher than that. Legal fees. Which brings us very conveniently to the next point, okay? So, I have a hypothetical scenario, not just one person, but, you know, many people who encounter a situation where they are owed money either because of a breach of contract or unpaid invoices, where they've suffered loss and what there's a there's a business disagreement and they want to recover that money. Okay. So, let's imagine that that's the scenario. So, what would you tell that person, or what would you do if you were helping to plan around the the person making the decision, whether or not to sue, where to sue? Should I find an alternative way to get the money back? Okay. So, usually what I do first is I evaluate the merits, right? Usually this would be just over a short phone call. Right. Just get the client to explain the case to me. Poke a bit of holes in their case and just see whether they they have a valid case or not. So merits of the case mean how strong or weak the cases is, from a legal perspective. Correct. Okay, so that's one thing. Find out whether there's a there's a good chance of winning in the first place. Yes, whether whether they have any chance of winning that's put in that. So that's merits. Next thing in your thought process, what do you look out for? Well, I look at the claim amount, right? So, if we are talking about let's say a $300,000 claim. First, I will look at the opponent. Who are you suing? Does he have the means to pay that $300,000? Right? Let's say this guy has no money in the pocket, no job, no bank account. Then is it really worth pursuing a claim? Because even if I win the case, it doesn't mean you get paid. That's right. Right. Because he might have an empty bank account and he might have no assets that you can, you can try to realize or seize or to sell or to translate into money. Yes, and I mean, if you do pursue the case, you get judgment and the person has no assets, the most you can do is bankrupt him. So if you expand on that, is how apart from just asking who that person is, how do how do lawyers and how can regular people who are not lawyers find out whether that person has money or not. Are there legitimate lawful ways to do this? It is very difficult to do that, right? But one of the things I look out for is whether the person owns any private properties. Okay. And so let's slow down. So how does how do how would you do that? Okay. So, I mean, if you have the NRIC of the person, it's very easy to do searches on them, right? From there, you can trace their registered address, you can see whether they own that property. Okay. Right. If they do own that property and if it's not property, um, then you do have security there, right? That is your part of goal. Okay. If you do win, you know that you can sell the house and recover your judgment from there. Very good. So, that's NRIC relating to property. But apart from that, any other things that you could Well, it becomes a bit difficult, right? Usually I'll look at the person's background, right? What kind of job are they in? Do they have an established career? Because I mean, even if they have an established career, but they don't have any funds in the bank account, the threat of bankruptcy might still pressure them to make payment. Sometimes we hear about lawyers doing searches, right? Searches whether it's on Accra on to find out whether they own businesses or whether they've been sued. What is the purpose of doing this? Well, okay, so for me, firstly to check whether there's any bankruptcy proceedings against the person or whether the person is already bankrupt, right? Secondly, I like to look at how many cases have been filed against them in the past. Ah, okay. So, how is that a useful piece of information to you? Okay, so I mean, there have been a couple of instances where I receive a client calls me up and says that, okay, this person has not paid for my services. Right. I'll do a search on that person or that company. And I'll see that there are 10 active lawsuits against them. Against that same person? Against that same person. Right. And at that juncture, I told them, I tell my client to say, look, this company looks like it's going down. I don't think you should be spending the money to pursue a claim when at the end of the day, you don't get anything. And that is the insight that you get from that piece of data. Yeah. Right. Okay. What else would you be able to get from from a search? I've mentioned something about, um, uh, ownership and involvement in companies, either as officers or shareholders or directors. What if information can you can you glean from from from there? Well, I mean, usually if they have business interests, that usually means they are generally at times good for the money, right? There is a procedure enforcement procedure, we call the writ of seizure and sale, uh, where you can sell away a person's shares in a company to recover the judgment, recover the debt. I see. So, the fact that he has shares in other companies, not looking at whether these companies are actually worth money, but at a very simple level, that You know there's a potential source of recovery. Okay. Okay, good. So, that's searches really, okay? So, we've talked about merits of the case. We've talked about whether the person that you're going after has anything for you to go after, right? Um, how about things you mentioned enforcement. How do you uh, explore or assess whether there'll be difficulties in enforcement? Okay, generally, it's a bit difficult to tell at the start of the case. But once, I mean, it's out the case, you can rely on what we discussed previously. Usually, such as the on the person, um, and just a brief background check on the person. Uh, after you get judgment, we have this process called the examination, where you get the person to come to court and disclose all his assets to the court. So, what you're talking about this process called examination takes place after you have already won the case. After you've already won the case. And this is where you call the person who is who owes you the money to to give information. Yes, so bank statements, um, list of assets they own, uh, whether they own any private properties, shares, Okay, so once this has been given, what do you do with that information? Well, okay, so I mean, there are a couple of things you can do. The first is if they have, let's say, a million dollars in the bank account, you can get a court order against the bank to release that money to you. What is that process called? Uh, it's called, it used to be called a garnishee, now it's called an attachment of debt. Okay. And this is a proper uh, commonly done process. Yes. If you know that there's money in the bank account, that's usually the first thing you do is the easiest process. Attachment of that. Debt. Okay, good. That's one. What else can you do after you've done the examination and you've got information about what he owns? Right. If there's a private property, then you can do a writ of seizure and sale on the property. On the actual property itself? Yes. Not just the belongings. No. So that that's another step. But I mean, usually, if you're going to take someone's belongings from my experience is not very useful, because you're taking second hand goods and you have to do an auction. The auctioneers charge a fee as well. The amount recovered is not, it's not good. Okay. So, seizure and sale against the actual property itself. Yes. So, we've got attachment of of debt. We've also got seizure and sale of someone's personal items in the house. Okay.
[18:01]Seizure and sale of the house itself. provided not HTV property. And what else is what other enforcement mechanisms are there? Well, I mean, you can do a writ of seizure of sale on someone's shares as well. How about what sometimes people feel about uh or or hear or say that you can go after someone's salary if they're being employed? No, you can't you can't go under after someone's salary. Ah, so that's that's protected. So, that's not something that you can do. No, that's not something. You can't say that because you're making very steady and fixed income in a full-time long-term committed employment, I can ask the employee to pay me the money. You you can't do that for for general proceedings, but I mean if you know that the money is being credited into a certain bank account, then you can go after that. Okay. Now the last one, before we move on into a slightly different area, but still related to the same topic, bankruptcy. Some people feel that by when I've won the case, and I've tried all these other ways to get the money and he doesn't want to, I will make him bankrupt.
[19:07]Yes. And there are two schools of thought. Some people will say that it's a waste of money because I've I will have to spend more money to make a person bankrupt. Yes. Right. But another school of thought feels that, uh, by doing this, I put the maximum amount of pressure on him, because people the the thinking is that most people would try their very best to avoid being bankrupt because there's so many inconveniences that come along with being a person who's made an undischarged bankrupt. Mhm. That that person would find whatever ways and means to to repay you. What what is what is your experience? Okay, again, I look at the debtor, right? Because if this is a young person, say someone in their 30s, working in the finance industry. I know that bankruptcy is going to put a lot of pressure on him to to make you pay me. Because he needs to not be a bankrupt to continue working in the industry. Yes, he needs to clean record, right? But if you're talking about someone who's say in their 70s or 80s, right? Bankruptcy is not going to have much impact on their life, because I mean, I would assume that person is no longer drawing an income. Um, bankruptcy doesn't doesn't really do anything for them. So even what you just said is very insightful, because it means that having a very clear, it still comes back to that initial assessment. At the very beginning of the case, even maybe even before you take on the case, you will look far ahead enough to understand the profile of the potential debtor to see whether there's any way that you can get any money out of him. Yes. And that is worth the money that you pay to get that information. Yes, because you want, once the court wants the matter to go to the court, it's a lot harder to resolve. So you'll save you the heart and the pain and the blood, sweat and tears that you will have to incur much later on. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much again for today's chat. We've covered a lot of ground and I I think there's a lot of information that people hearing about litigation and claims and the court process would definitely benefit from.
