GCB argues for advocates to be struck off

The Pretoria Society of Advocates last year fined and suspended 12 of the advocates, including two senior advocates, for between four and six months. This was after they pleaded guilty to multiple charges of double briefing and overreaching involving the Road Accident Fund (RAF), notes the report. The Pretoria Bar asked the court to note the sentences already imposed and to decide on the fate of a 13th advocate, who pleaded not guilty to the charges. It found that no dishonesty was involved and that the group contravened some of the Bar's rules by taking on too many cases. The General Council of the Bar, however, intervened and asked for their names to be struck off the Roll of Advocates, arguing that their conduct was scandalous, had prejudiced the RAF and their clients and undermined the public's confidence in advocates. Advocate Hilton Epstein SC, appearing for the GCB, took issue with the 'bizarre' findings of the Pretoria Bar that its members had acted honestly and professionally. He argued that it was dishonest to accept more than one brief for the same day and then charge a full day's trail fees per brief, even if those cases became settled. Full report in The Citizen

The advocates all said they knew the cases were going to be settled and therefore they accepted multiple briefs, according to a second report in The Citizen. They maintained that they had rendered a professional service to their clients and the court, that they had asked reasonable fees and that no one, not even the RAF, was prejudiced. Freek Terblanche SC, acting for some of the advocates, said those involved were experts in their field, knew what they were doing and were capable of dealing with multiple cases. He argued that the RAF had probably benefited because less experienced advocates with little work would probably have cost it more. Accident victims were also not prejudiced as they did not lose a cent and the whole award was forwarded to them, he said. Terblanche noted that if they were in Johannesburg, the contraventions would not have warranted punishment at all, as Johannesburg Bar's rules made provision for accepting multiple briefs. Full report in The Citizen

A Beeld reports paints a picture of the extent of the advocates' irregular RAF activities. It notes Judge Kees van Dijkhorst and the two judges with him on the Bench made a preliminary estimation of the income the respondents received from the RAF matters found to be irregular. The only advocate who did not plead guilty before the Pretoria Bar, French Bezuidenhout, earned more than R8.6m from the cases in question. Other calculations are: DP Mogagabe (R1.9m) , PM Leopeng (R1.3m), CR van Onselen (R967 800), CG Jordaan (R78 000), MC de Klerk (R310 800), E Seima (R141 900), Mattheus Botha (R1.7m), J Williams SC (R864 000), M Upton (R166 400), T Pillay (R268 800), Brenton Geach SC (R984 000) and Stef Guldenpfenning (High Court Chambers, Pretoria) (R864 000). Full Beeld report