Take for example, the issue of an Living Will, and the requirements of stamp fees, and then access to the lower earning classes in the event of disputes between owners and beneficiaries. The costs of a ‘Chartered Accountant’ are well beyond the almost non-existent savings levels especially of the lower amd middle wealth persons so the concept of ‘Trust Deed’ is beyond almost all 99%ters. Ask how many low income people if they can afford to even spend 500 on legal fees for any purpose then ask if they can save 500 a year to begin with. 1% will be quite likely. People hardly can save anything, meanmwhile the Chartered Accountant and Lawyer have massive incomes not commensurate with Middle class professions such fields represent. Price controls hence sghould be considered as follows in the below paragraphs.
As mentioned earlier in the response to above article (Probate Court: The Largest Business in the World – by Danny Tate on November 3, 2011 – Judge Randy Kennedy https://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/probate-court-the-largest-business-in-the-world-by-danny-tate-on-november-3-2011-judge-randy-kennedy/) , a lawyer is supposed to render a service of legal services to ALL people regardless of wealth level, and should only be allowed to charge what any and all citizens can afford – which is preferably no more than 10% of the yearly salary of the person, because that represents the entire savings capacity of most people in the lower and middle classes.
By allowed fixed prices, which are not necessarily affordable to too many lower earnings level citizens, legal services tend to impoverish the citizens and little is done by the legislators in terms of price controls.
If a legal fee that has recurrent levies reaches 10% of the yearly salary of the person, the case/service attending lawyer should not be allowed to charge any more until that case or legal service is completed. Why? As such levels of legal fees entirely take away all possibility of savings for that person for that year already (consider that *ONLY* 50 ITEMS of legal services could be done by ANY person during their lifetime, as per the 50 years of active life and active earning is also 50 years typically.
How can this be tenable? This means that professional fees of lawyers sequester away entire salaries of virtually ALL lower earning classes and far too much of middle earning classes which make up easil more than 50% of the population. A lawyer must at least not charge anything more than that 10% yearly salary limit until that year has passed. If a person had done 1 item of legal service per year (not unreasonable), they would have no savings at all, and would mean being dependant on the welfare system.
In fact in the event that a second or third or more legal services are required after the 10% yearly salary expenditure had been spent, the same person should be granted FREE ACCESS to legal services – people do not enjoy wasting time on legal services, though red tape is of course rather extreme as well, penalties for all kinds of inconsequential issues considered offenses or the unecessary need of lawyers in too many aspecst of lives (i.e. stamping and witnessing of many documents could be done at ALL post offices, government offices instead of just at lawyers offices only).
Note the extreme fees at 15% of value for Land Office charges for subdivision of land (Pejabat Tanah Galian) in Malaysia, too damn high as commpared to the sales agent’s 1-2% commission which is already excessive, being the government, this should be 0.1% at most. And time frames for same subdivision is disgraceful – ‘less than 2 years . . . (to repeat)’ . The loss of wealth in this manner is extreme and the MPs who allowed this to persist are unvotable. Why can the MPs, Governors, Bar Council not address and amend these extreme fees levied by the land office to 1% at maximum? Why can’t price controls be relegated to a sliding scale limited to the 10% earning’s limit as above suggested which will help in wealth distribution? Or at least consider that 1% of any individual’s savings at most?