Lawyers ordered to stop over-charging

According to a Business Day report, the High Court judgment last year held that a common law contingency fee agreement that Ronald Bobroff & Partners entered into with Juanne de la Guerre was invalid. Yesterday, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application to have the entire Contingency Fees Act declared unconstitutional. The report says the judgment could have a bearing on another case now before the North Gauteng High Court. The case involves Matthew and Jennifer Graham, who have applied for the Law Society of the Northern Provinces to be compelled to investigate their complaint of overcharging against Ronald Bobroff & Partners. Graham suffered a motor accident in 2005 and his wife hired the law firm to lodge a claim against the Road Accident Fund. The claim was settled for R1.9m plus costs and the law firm retained R858 000, a 60:40 split. The 1997 Contingency Fees Act sets a maximum of 25% for lawyers. Ronald Bobroff & Partners was one of the law firms that charged more than allowed for in the Act, because Law Society rules permitted it, notes the report. Full Business Day report (subscription needed)

According to a Moneyweb report, many attorneys have shown a flagrant disregard for the law, and the fundamental rights of victims of road accidents. It says the judgment clears up any doubt that may have existed regarding how attorneys may charge contingency fees. Explaining the background to the case, Moneyweb says Juanne de la Guerre was a passenger in a motor vehicle in which she was injured. She suffered head and spinal injuries. The RAF claim was relatively straightforward. She was awarded R2.5m by the court. It came as a shock to her when she established that her attorneys, Ronald Bobroff & Partners (RBP), represented by Darren Bobroff, had charged her R868 000 in professional fees, excluding disbursements. Moneyweb notes the judgment was in respect of two intertwined cases. The first was that of RBP who challenged a North Gauteng High Court order to provide an itemised account to De la Guerre and to refund what they had overcharged her. The second was that of SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Saapil) which challenged the constitutionality of the Contingency Fees Act. In handing down judgment, the court pointed out: 'The right of access to justice is that of the legal practitioners' clients, not that of the legal practitioners themselves.' In considering Saapil's submissions the judges unanimously found 'the action was not brought as a class action - as alleged by Saapil - but as one where personal injury lawyers acted on their own behalf.' The judges said that there were absolutely no reasonable prospects of success in the matter. Full Moneyweb report Bobroff & Partners Inc v De La Guerre (CCT122/13 & 123/13)

In a media statement after the judgment, Ronald Bobroff said he hoped that 'government will have regard to this anomalous situation and effect appropriate legislation, enabling adult litigants to freely contract with their attorneys as they choose, without being confined within the straight jacket of the ambiguous and mpractical Contingency Fees Act, and being forced to publicly disclose extremely sensitive and personal confidential information as a requirement of any settlement.' Media statement by Saapil and the Bobroffs