More than 100 lawyers were removed from the list

The Legal Practice Council (LPC) says more than 100 lawyers have been delisted for misconduct this year.

Kabelo Letebele, LPC’s senior manager of communications and engagement, said more than 150 people had been suspended this year alone as a result of the work done by the council.

Letebele confirmed this in response to Moneyweb’s request for comment on a damning report published last month by the Legal Services Ombud into the LPC’s handling of the investigation and disciplinary hearing into a complaint against the firm Schumann van den Heever. & Slabbert Inc. is headquartered in Kempton Park, Gauteng.

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) said its complaints about the legal profession were substantiated by a “stern Legal Services Ombud report” into mismanagement at the LPC, which “condemned the LPC’s failure to hold rogue solicitors to account”.

“We think we are vindicated by the Ombud’s report,” RAF chief executive Collins Letsoalo said. “We have raised our concerns with the LPC on a number of occasions regarding their reluctance to address our complaints.”

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

ALSO READ: Unethical lawyers stealing from RAF claimants, Fund warns

The council defends itself

Letebele noted that the LPC recorded the outcome of the matter referred to the Legal Services Ombudsman, adding that the Legal Practice Act provides for any complainant who is dissatisfied with the outcome to take the matter to the appeal process, legal ombudsman or court. The law that has the power to override the outcome of any of our cases.

He said an average of more than 14,000 complaints are submitted to the LPC annually, and that the complaint against Schumann van den Heever & Slabbert Inc. was “just one of many successful disciplinary processes conducted by the LPC.”

“Since our founding, an average of 80 to 100 practitioners are delisted each year for misconduct.”

Letebele said the RAF had adopted an approach of “finger pointing rather than co-operation” and that the LPC had issued an invitation to the RAF to cooperate and work together “on many occasions”.

“Given the required legal investigative processes and the often lengthy process of bringing matters to court, our number of suspensions and expungements is already evident.”

He continued: “Our offices continue to work diligently to deal with all complaints received regarding our investigations. “We choose to cooperate for the benefit of all role players and the public.”

ALSO READ: Medico-legal turmoil: SIU reveals R4bn loss

Request for investigation from RAF

Letebele confirmed to Moneyweb in October 2023 that the RAF had formally approached the LPC and that discussions had taken place with the fund before and after the RAF letter was submitted to the LPC in 2020, in which the RAF stated that certain lawyers and/or law firms were required. Investigated by LPC.

Letebele said one of the key issues raised by the RAF was the RAF’s repeated payments to lawyers and allegations that some lawyers had not refunded additional/duplicate amounts.

He said that these issues are reported to all provinces to check whether the complaints are valid, and that the necessary processes are followed in case lawyers or law firms have a case to answer.

Letebele said more than 90% of complaints brought to the attention of the LPC by the RAF were investigated and closed.

“If the lawyer can prove that there was no duplicate payment or that the duplicate amount was refunded, we will consider the matter closed.”

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

ALSO READ: RAF needs a Resettlement Center for crash victims – expert

Law firm filed a lawsuit

The report issued by the Ombudsman concerned a complaint made to the LPC by lawyer Stephen May on behalf of Thandi Dhlamini and seven other complainants, who sued Schumanns and four of its directors in the Johannesburg High Court. Schumanns represented the complainants in the case against the RAF.

May claimed:

• The complaint made to the LPC was not properly investigated; And
• The way the LPC ruled against three of Schumann’s four directors reflects the LPC’s mismanagement in terms of the LPA.

Dhlamini was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and claimed a former executive at Schumanns had stated that the fee he would receive for settling the RAF claim would be 25% of the award.

He was subsequently informed by the former manager that his claim against the RAF had been settled and he claimed to have received R400,000 of the amount awarded, with the balance of the compensation allocated to fees and expenses.

ALSO READ: Law Society responds to Road Accident Fund CEO Collins Letsoalo

Lawyer candidate blows the whistle

In 2019, a whistleblower who was a trainee lawyer at Schumanns approached a member of the media who was reporting on irregularities occurring in their offices.

This member of the media contacted Dhlamini and informed her of possible allegations against the Schumanns, after which Dhlamini instructed May to act on her behalf.

Four Schumans executives were charged by the LPC with:

• Not providing written account statements to their clients upon termination of their duties;
• Overreaching customers by not complying with the provisions of the Unexpected Fees Act;
• Overreaching to clients as a result of the firm’s practice of keeping parties and party expenses in-house regarding motor vehicle accident matters;
• Touting for professional work;
• Bringing the profession into disrepute; And
• Failure to maintain the highest standard of honesty and integrity, including payments for fictitious appearances.

ALSO READ: Court rejects RAF CEO’s request for ‘forced imprisonment’

plea agreement

At an LPC disciplinary hearing on 30 March 2023, a plea agreement signed between the LPC and three of the four Schumanns executives (Izak Bosman, Azelle Kleinen and Jacobus Johannes Slabbert) was submitted to the disciplinary committee for approval.

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

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

In relation to the complaint regarding the behavior of former Schumanns director Jakkie Supra, the committee recommended that the LPC apply to the court for his suspension.

ALSO READ: RAF wins court bid to drop R11 million compensation claim following evidence showing victim suffered minor injuries

Ombud’s findings

Legal Services Ombudsman Judge Sirajudien Desai said the chairman of the LPC disciplinary committee had asked May to comment on the plea agreement, but this was the first and only opportunity he had been given to comment on a situation that was already fait accompli. The LPC points to the fact that the Schumanns, Bosman, Kleinen and Slabbert had already reached an agreement behind closed doors.

Desai concluded that there was mismanagement in the implementation of the Civil Practice Act:

• The LPC failed to properly investigate the complaint, failing to obtain additional information that could have affected the outcome of the disciplinary hearing;
• The charges against Schumanns and its directors do not adequately reflect the alleged misconduct;
• The disciplinary committee, and therefore the LPC, failed to adequately decide the complaint by failing to consider the reasonableness of the plea agreement in light of the allegations before it; And
• By doing so, the LPC and its disciplinary committee not only failed to act in the public interest but also contributed to injustice.

This article is republished from Moneyweb. To read original here.