A lawyer who was previously found to have overcharged clients has again had his legal fees sharply reduced by the court, after a judge ruled that the bills were “plainly excessive” in another case involving a different client.
Mr Vijay Kumar Rai of Arbiters Inc Law Corporation billed a client more than $108,000 for legal work done over 7 months in 2023, even though the trial had not started. The total amount billed was $108,225.
After the client requested the court to assess the bills, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun reduced the amount to $34,000. In his written judgment dated Dec 22, 2025, Judge Chiah referred to earlier findings by a High Court judge who had already described Mr Rai’s fees as excessive. Arbiters has since filed an appeal to the High Court against this decision.
Past High Court Findings
This is not the first time Mr Rai’s fees have been under scrutiny. In December 2024, the Appellate Division of the High Court found that he had overcharged a couple who hired him for a negligence lawsuit following the suicide of their 31-year-old son. The couple later dropped their lawyers and settled the case independently for $330,000.
After the settlement, Arbiters sued the couple to recover legal bills totaling about $370,000, which the Appellate Division reduced to $87,000. The 3-judge panel said the costs claimed were so “plainly excessive as to amount to overcharging” and referred Mr Rai’s conduct to the Law Society of Singapore for a disciplinary inquiry.
Current Case: De Beaute Lawsuit
In the current case, Mr Rai acted for beauty salon De Beaute in a civil lawsuit against a former employee who allegedly coerced staff into providing free treatments and kept customer payments.
Arbiters took over the case in February 2023, providing a fee estimate of $70,000 for work up to trial. De Beaute paid 7 invoices totalling $33,285, with each invoice charging about $4,000–$5,000.
In September 2023, before trial dates were set, Arbiters issued an eighth invoice charging $40,000. De Beaute then discharged the firm and hired Mr Gavin Neo from WongPartnership to handle both the lawsuit and the fee dispute.
Court Assessment and Fee Reduction
Mr Rai argued that he had carried out “an enormous amount of work” due to the complexity of the case. However, the appeal was dismissed in March 2025 by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, who said the matter was not as complex as claimed and found the bills “plainly excessive.”
After further review, Judge Chiah reduced the fees again, allowing $30,000 for preparation and review of affidavits and $4,000 for attending a pre-trial hearing. Judge Chiah said he considered cost guidelines, the original fee estimate, and the legal costs awarded after De Beaute won the suit.
