In an article headlined 'Judge raps lawyers for their 'astonishing' fees' in yesterday's South China Morning Post, we reported that barrister Chong Tin-chun lodged a claim for 13.5 hours spent perusing documents. In fact, it was Mr Chong's instructing solicitors who submitted the claim, not Mr Chong. It should also be noted that when Mr Justice Conrad Seagroatt criticised the duplication of the work and charges, he was directing his comments to the solicitors, not to Mr Chong.
