More than 100 legal practitioners struck off the roll

More than 100 legal practitioners have been struck off the roll for misconduct this year, says the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

LPC senior manager for communications and engagements Kabelo Letebele said a further more than 150 have been placed on suspension this year alone as a result of the work done by the council.

Letebele confirmed this in response to a request by Moneyweb for comment on a damning report issued by the Legal Services Ombud last month to a complaint about the manner in which the LPC handled the investigation and disciplinary proceedings of a complaint against the firm Schumann van den Heever & Slabbert Inc based in Kempton Park in Gauteng.

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) said its complaints about the legal profession were vindicated by the “scathing Legal Services Ombud report” about maladministration at the LPC, which had “lambasted the LPC’s failure to hold crooked attorneys to account”.

“We feel vindicated by the Ombud’s report,” said RAF CEO Collins Letsoalo. “Several times, we have raised our concerns with the LPC for their lack of enthusiasm in dealing with our complaints.”

He added: “Instead of constructively engaging with us, the LPC attempted to suppress our concerns and even sent threatening correspondence to the fund, demanding a retraction.”

ALSO READ: Unethical attorneys stealing from RAF claimants, Fund issues warning

Council defends itself

Letebele said the LPC has noted the outcome of the matter referred to the Legal Services Ombud, adding the Legal Practice Act does make provision for any complainant not satisfied with the outcome to either take a matter to the appeals process, the legal ombud or the court of law, which have the powers to overrule the outcome of any of our cases.

He said an average of more than 14 000 complaints are lodged with the LPC a year and the complaint against Schumann van den Heever & Slabbert Inc is but “one case out of many successful disciplinary processes that have been carried out by the LPC”.

“Since our establishment, an average of 80 to 100 practitioners are being removed off the roll for misconduct each year.”

Letebele said the RAF has taken the approach of “finger pointing instead of collaborating” and the LPC has extended an invitation to the RAF to collaborate and work with it “on many occasions”.

“Our numbers of suspensions and strike-offs speak for themselves, given the required legal processes of investigating and the often-lengthy process of taking matters to court.”

He added: “Our offices continue to work studiously to attend to all complaints brought for our investigations. We prefer to collaborate to the benefit of all role players and the public.”

ALSO READ: Medico-legal mayhem: SIU exposes R4bn loss

RAF request for investigation

Letebele confirmed to Moneyweb in October 2023 that the RAF did approach the LPC formally and there were discussions with the fund before and after the submission of the RAF letter to the LPC in 2020 where the RAF indicated certain lawyers and/or legal firms needed to be investigated by the LPC.

Letebele said one of the major issues raised by the RAF was of duplicate payments made by the RAF to lawyers and its claims that some of the lawyers were not refunding the additional/duplicated amounts.

He said these matters were referred to all the provinces to investigate and ensure the complaints were valid and, where the lawyers or legal firms have a case to answer, the necessary processes were followed.

Letebele said over 90% of the complaints brought to the LPC’s attention by the RAF had been investigated and closed.

“Where the legal practitioner was able to prove that there was no duplicate payment or the duplicate amount was refunded, we would consider the matter closed.”

Letebele said the remaining about 10% of the complaints were still being investigated.

ALSO READ: RAF needs a Settlement Hub for crash victims – expert

Law firm sued

The report issued by the ombud related to a complaint lodged with the LPC by attorney Stephen May on behalf of Thandi Dhlamini and seven other complainants who sued Schumanns and its four directors in the High Court in Johannesburg. Schumanns represented the complainants in a claim against the RAF.

May alleged that:

• The complaint lodged with the LPC was not properly investigated; and
• The manner in which the LPC came to its decision against three of the four directors of Schumanns is reflective of maladministration by the LPC in terms of the LPA.

Dhlamini was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and alleged that a former director of Schumanns indicated the fee it would charge would be 25% of the award for handling her RAF claim.

She was subsequently informed by the former director that her claim against the RAF was settled and alleged she received R400 000 of the amount awarded to her and informed the balance of the award went towards fees and disbursements.

ALSO READ: Law Society hits back at Road Accident Fund CEO Collins Letsoalo

Candidate attorney blows the whistle

In 2019 a whistleblower, a candidate attorney at Schumanns, approached a member of the media reporting on the irregularities occurring at its offices.

This member of the media contacted Dhlamini and informed her of claims she may have against Schumanns, resulting in Dhlamini thereafter instructing May to act on her behalf.

Four Schumanns directors were charged by the LPC of:

• Failing to render written statements of account to their clients on finalisation of their mandate;
• Overreaching their clients by failing to comply with the provisions of the Contingency Fees Act;
• Overreaching their clients as a result of the firm’s practice of keeping the party and party costs in respect of the motor vehicle accident matters;
• Touting for professional work;
• Bringing the profession into disrepute; and
• Failing to maintain the highest standard of honesty and integrity by the inclusion of disbursements for fictitious attendances.

ALSO READ: Court dismisses application for ‘coercive imprisonment’ of RAF CEO

Plea agreement

At a LPC disciplinary hearing on 30 March 2023, a plea agreement which was entered into between the LPC and three of the four Schumanns directors – Izak Bosman, Azelle Kleinen and Jacobus Johannes Slabbert – was presented to the disciplinary committee for its approval.

The agreement was that Schumanns would plead guilty to all six charges and in exchange the LPC would withdraw five of the charges against the three directors.

In addition, Bosman, Kleinen and Slabbert would plead guilty to the only remaining charge of bringing the profession into disrepute and, as a result of the plea of guilty to this charge, the directors would be liable to pay a fine of R60 000 each and Schumanns the corporate entity liable to pay a fine of R120 000.

In regard to the complaint about the conduct of former Schumanns director Jakkie Supra, the committee recommended the LPC bring an application to court to suspend him.

ALSO READ: RAF wins court bid to reduce R11m claim after evidence shows victim had minor injuries

Ombud’s findings

Ombud for Legal Services, Judge Sirajudien Desai, said the chair of the LPC disciplinary committee did ask May to comment on the plea agreement – but this was the first and only opportunity given to him to express an opinion on what was already a fait accompli due to the fact that the LPC, Schumanns, Bosman, Kleinen and Slabbert had already reached an agreement behind closed doors.

Desai concluded there was maladministration in the application of the Legal Practice Act in that:

• The LPC failed to properly investigate the complaint by not obtaining additional information which may have affected the outcome of the disciplinary hearing;
• The charges brought against Schumanns and its directors do not adequately reflect the alleged misconduct;
• The disciplinary committee and by implication the LPC failed to adequately adjudicate the complaint by not considering the reasonableness of the plea agreement in light of the allegations before it; and
• In so doing, the LPC and the disciplinary committee not only failed to act in the public interest but also contributed to the injustice.

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.