新加坡和中国律师办案一个很大区别就是国内很多案件会选择风险代理，即“不胜诉不收费”，而新加坡是不允许风险代理的。但是这个铁律今年发生了改变。
根据新加坡律政部（MinLaw）的一份声明，在新推出的附条件收费协议（简称“CFA”）机制下，律师及其客户可以选择签订“不胜诉不收费”、“不胜诉少收费”或“胜诉多收费”协议。
品诚梅森律师事务所与MPillay的新加坡合资律所 - Pinsent Masons MPillay的仲裁专家杜振汉指出：“这些变化增强了新加坡在解决国际商事争端方面的吸引力。新加坡的律师现在可以提供一种新型的费用安排，以分担诉讼的风险和回报。该举措可以规避财政限制，这些限制可能会抑制客户为提起合法诉求所作的努力。”
CFA机制将适用于新加坡的律师和律师事务所、指定的外国律师和外国律师事务所。在其他一些指定的法律程序中也允许采用CFA，包括国际和国内仲裁程序、新加坡国际商事法院（SICC）的一些程序，以及相关的诉讼和调解程序。
新加坡律政部已经颁布若干规则，以避免CFA被滥用情况的发生。
根据这些规则，在签订CFA之前，律师必须向客户提供CFA的性质、适用情况和条款信息。在签订CFA之前，律师必须告知客户其有权寻求独立的法律意见，并且客户仍然对法院或仲裁庭作出的任何费用命令负责。如果客户胜诉，他们将无法从对方当事人处收回其律师费中的律师提升费用。
CFA还必须包括一些特定的条款。其中包括支付给律师的费用细节；任何适用的提升费用的细节；律师和客户均适用的五天冷静期，加上与任何费用变更有关的另外三天冷静期；以及在冷静期内对协议作出任何变更或终止需采用书面形式的要求。客户无需支付冷静期内产生的费用，但客户明确指示或同意在冷静期内提供服务的费用除外。
新加坡律师将继续受到禁止过度收费的现有职业行为规则的约束。
新加坡律政部网站原文：
From 4 May 2022, lawyers in Singapore can enter into conditional fee agreements1 (“CFAs”) with clients in selected proceedings with the commencement of a new CFA framework. This provides an additional option, alongside traditional fee agreements provided for under the Legal Profession Act.
A CFA is a mutually agreed arrangement for the payment of fees, subject to the requirements specified in the framework. Under the new CFA framework, examples of CFAs that parties may enter into include “win, more fee”2 , “no win, no fee”, and “no win, less fee” agreements.
The new CFA framework will apply to Singapore lawyers and law practices, as well as certain registered foreign lawyers and foreign law practices. CFAs can be entered into for international and domestic arbitration proceedings, some proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”), and related court and mediation proceedings. The details can be found in the Legal Profession (Conditional Fee Agreement) Regulations (the “CFA Regulations”).
The CFA framework is part of ongoing efforts to enhance our litigation funding landscape to better support the needs of businesses and lawyers. It also builds on reforms in the litigation funding space and enhances Singapore’s offerings as a dispute resolution hub.
The following safeguards are in place to mitigate the risk of any potential abuse of CFAs:
a. A lawyer is required to provide information on the CFA to the client before entering into a CFA. This includes:
i. The nature and operation of the CFA and its terms;
ii. The client’s right to seek independent legal advice before entering into the CFA;
iii. That the uplift fees are not recoverable; and
iv. That the client continues to be liable for any costs orders that may be made against client by the court or arbitral tribunal.
b. The CFA must include the following prescribed terms:
i. The particulars of the specified circumstances in which remuneration and costs or any part of them are payable to the lawyer under the CFA;
ii. The particulars of any uplift fee, if applicable;
iii. That lawyers and clients must comply with the cooling-off period of five days after a CFA is entered into, during which either party may terminate the agreement via a written notice;
iv. That any variation of the CFA must be in writing and expressly agreed to by all parties to the CFA. For variation related to costs issues, there is also a cooling-off period of three days after the CFA is varied, during which either party may terminate the variation agreement via a written notice; and
v. That on the termination of the CFA during the cooling-off period in 3b(iii) or 3b(iv), the client is not liable for any remuneration or costs incurred during the cooling-off period except those incurred for any service performed during the cooling-off period that was expressly instructed by or agreed to by the client.
Lawyers will continue to be subject to existing professional conduct rules against overcharging. This is clarified in accompanying amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
The Law Society of Singapore is preparing a Guidance Note on CFAs to guide law practices and practitioners through the new framework. This will be issued in due course.
MINISTRY OF LAW
29 APRIL 2022
1. CFAs are arrangements in which a lawyer receives payment of the whole or part of his or her legal fees only in specified circumstances; for example, where the claim is successful. They differ from contingency fee agreements, where the lawyer may share in an agreed percentage of the sum recovered by the client with no direct correlation to the work done. Contingency fee agreements continue to be prohibited in Singapore.↩
2. A key feature of the CFA framework is that uplift fees may be provided. An uplift fee refers to the fees payable to the lawyer in specified circumstances, that are higher than what would otherwise be payable if there were no CFA. Such uplift fees can be in the form of a gross sum or hourly rate, and are unrelated to the sum of damages awarded to the client.↩
