Search the Community

I'm sure everybody has encountered headscratching situations in the workspace. Be it from colleagues or clients, some of them make you wanna vomit blood. Let's share our stories! - Client: The artwork colour needs to be exactly the same as our core product. Me: Sure, just let my designer know your Pantone/CMYK/RGB code when you sent the requirements over. *2 weeks later, designer crying. Client has been scolding them for incompetence and "blindness", and just arrived unannounced in the office* Client: YOUR DESIGNER ALL BLIND OR STUPID? I SAID MUST BE SAME COLOUR! I MUST HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES! Me: Designer, you guys didn't follow brief? Forward it to me I check. Sorry client, gimme 5 mins. Client: *angry face* *I check and there's no problem at all. Followed brief down to the last fullstop* Me: Miss Client, as you can see here, its the same colour code in your brief, and.. *CLIENT EXPLODES, CUTS ME OFF AND STARTS SHOUTING DAMN LOUDLY* Client: What's wrong with all of you! Even you at your level don't understand simple English! *Whips out her laptop to open the artwork* Client: Can you see how different it is!? Look, your laptop, her PC and mine all different colour! *Whips out actual product and aggressively slams it against all the screens* Client: And NONE of them matches my real product!!!!!!! At this point, COO came into my room to ask what's going on since he's next door and can hear everything. He discovers that the client doesn't understand how different machines show colours differently, and that "real" colour on a screen doesn't mean "real" colour produced. He literally threw her out of the office and broke their contract. - Colleague A: You want some bacon? I bring back from Australia. I put some in the oven for you, later try okay? Colleague B: Err... but I'm vegetarian you know right. Colleague A: Oh, I thought you ony cannot eat meat in Singapore. Then how about this kangaroo jerky? Its not beef. *facepalm* Note: Clients From Hell is a real website founded in 2009.

After Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP said last week it would boost starting pay for its junior-most lawyers to $180,000, law firms across the country stumbled over themselves to announce salary increases for their own associates. But now companies are pushing back. Bank of America Corp.’s top lawyer recently sent an email to a group of law firms calling the increases in associate lawyer pay unjustified, making it clear the bank wouldn’t help firms absorb the cost. “While we respect the firms’ judgment about what best serves their long-term competitive interests, we are aware of no market-driven basis for such an increase and do not expect to bear the costs of the firms’ decisions,” David Leitch, Bank of America’s global general counsel, wrote in the email, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment. The latest law firm salary raises boosted first-year pay by 12.5%, and gave comparable hikes to the rest of the associate lawyer ranks. Pay generally went up by between $20,000 and $35,000 for every associate, topping out at salaries of $315,000 and above for the senior-most associates, typically with eight or nine years of experience. The chief litigation officer for a Fortune 100 company said $180,000 for a first-year isn’t justified, pointing by way of comparison to a lawyer in the company’s litigation department with 20 years of experience who doesn’t make that much money. “Why would we ever think a first-year associate is worth that?” the lawyer said, adding that they recently denied a firm’s request to charge $400 an hour for a first-year. The identities of the law firms that received Mr. Leitch’s message aren’t known, but the email appeared to target firms that handle the bank’s litigation. “We value the work performed by our Litigation Roundtable firms and seek to maintain a true partnership that meets our reciprocal needs—thoughtful, strategic, and cost-competitive representation at rates and alternative billing arrangements that are attractive to our counsel,” wrote Mr. Leitch. Advertisement The email ended by saying Mr. Leitch entrusts the firms who receive the email with its work because of their “legal expertise and entrepreneurial instinct,” and looks forward to continuing to partner with them. Like many other large companies, BofA has worked in recent years to reduce its legal spending; in 2013, the bank told the Association of Corporate Counsel it slimmed the number of firms it hires to defend it in litigation to 30 from around 700. Bank of America spent $1.2 billion on litigation in 2015, according to its earnings report. BofA has used firms including Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP for big litigation matters in the past. Paul Weiss declined to comment. Representatives for Skadden and Cleary didn’t immediately return calls for comment. Cravath didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The push-and-pull over pay and rates has for decades been a source of tension between corporate legal departments and the law firms they hire. Historically, law firms charged their clients in only one way: by the hour. While many in-house lawyers grumbled about the arrangements, saying they encouraged inefficiency and led to eye-popping bills, they mostly paid them. But within the last decade or so, companies have pushed back. They now routinely demand “flat-fee” arrangements for a single piece of work, like a lawsuit or a transaction. And many have stopped paying for photocopies and legal research, items that were once rubber-stamped. In-house lawyers have also ramped up resistance to paying for the most junior lawyers, often saying they won’t pay for first- and second-year lawyers even if they are staffed on assignments. Such lawyers, the thinking goes, are too often billed out at hundreds an hour to perform relatively menial tasks, like reviewing documents. Not all in-house lawyers are railing against the raises. Edward Ryan, the global general counsel for Marriott International Inc., said he believes “law firms are responsible for their own cost structure” and that what ultimately matters is “the value of what we pay for.” That said, he questioned if clients will “take their business elsewhere” if law firms try to pass off the costs directly. Before Cravath raising its salaries, associate pay industrywide hadn’t budged in nearly a decade, a time during which law school tuition has skyrocketed, leaving many graduates with upward of $100,000 in debt. Many associates had complained to law-firm leaders that in recent years their pay scale had failed to keep up with cost-of-living increases. It isn’t entirely surprising that dozens of firms have followed Cravath’s lead and matched the new salary structure in recent days. Large law firms view keeping pace with market leaders like Cravath as part of staying competitive in recruiting and retaining their younger lawyers, even if their profits are lower and they operate in smaller markets.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/accountant-pocketed-40m-clients An accountant specialising in insolvency cases was tasked with liquidating 21 companies and managing the finances of another. It is alleged that he took them to the cleaners instead. He is accused of pocketing more than $40 million from these firms, and used most of the money to gamble and pay off his creditors, a court heard yesterday. Ewe Pang Kooi, 61, allegedly misappropriated $40,622,169 and US$147,000 (S$196,300) in all. The licensed liquidator and managing partner of certified public accounting firm Ewe, Loke & Partners was hit with 693 charges yesterday. These involved offences that he allegedly committed between February 2002 and July 2012, including multiple counts of criminal breach of trust, forgery and cheating. To conceal his acts, he allegedly made false declarations to a commissioner of oaths in 236 instances. He is said to have cashed in at least $1,114,195 of it for gambling chips at Singapore's two casinos. Ewe was liquidating several subsidiaries of technology giant Hewlett-Packard (HP). The case came to light when he tried to put off convening the final meetings, after which, dividends would have to be paid out. HP, Technology Partners International (TPI) and a partner of Ewe's firm made police reports against him. In 2007, TPI had engaged E&M Management Consultants, where Ewe was a director, to manage its accounting needs and Singapore bank account. Ewe is said to have misappropriated $10,581,000 and $678,981 from TPI and E&M's clients' account respectively. He has been remanded in Changi Prison as he is unable to raise the $4 million bail on offer. A bail review hearing will take place today and his case will next be heard on Feb 5. Deputy Public Prosecutor Hon Yi said that, in the meantime, the prosecution will write to the High Court to have the matter transferred there, in the light of the amount involved in the charges. Ewe, a permanent resident from Malaysia, is represented by Peter Doraisamy. If convicted, Ewe could be jailed for life or up to 10 years and fined for each count of criminal breach of trust as an agent. For using the benefits of criminal conduct, he could face a maximum penalty of seven years' jail and a $500,000 fine on each count.

Mon, Mar 22, 2010 The Star/Asia News Network SOME insurance companies in Johor are recruiting female agents to have sex with potential customers, Guang Ming Daily re-ported. The companies also arranged for the agents to party with the would-be clients at nightclubs and karaoke outlets. Sources told the newspaper that the female agents were recruited among divorcees, single mothers or those helping their boyfriends repay debts. "These are women who will do anything for money," the sources said, adding that the agents went after middle-aged small entrepreneurs who were not very highly educated. Agents who failed to "hit" their targets would be punished by having to "showcase" themselves in adult diapers or lingerie. They were also forced to pay fines of between RM1,000 and RM3,000 to their company.

Just wanna check if there are any Global Europ clients here? i made a big mistake by signing up a timeshare with ERI in 2001. Last year i was contacted by Global Europ and they offered to help me terminate my membership at a fee, and can get recovery money of up to $25k. They engaged a law firm for this purpose. Everything is in black and white and I also received the lawyer's letters which are indeed legitimate. Then recently, another company Asialinx sued Global Europ for breaching some contract. Global couldnt pay and so Asialinx seized all of Global's client, including me. Now, Global Europ has washed their hands off their clients. Asialinx, on the other hand said the recovery money is not possible, as it's a contract between clients and Global, not with Asialinx. The most, they say, is that my timeshare membership is already terminated. Not good enough for me. I want my money back. Anyone in the same boat as i am?