Graham and Others v Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Others (61790/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 207; 2014 (4) SA 229 (GP) (15 April 2014)

Graham and Others v Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Others (61790/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 207; 2014 (4) SA 229 (GP) (15 April 2014)

The Court found that the Law Society had not failed to perform its statutory duties in investigating the complaint against the Bobroffs. The Law Society followed prescribed procedures, referred the Faris report for consideration, and did not demonstrate bias or conflict in its handling of the disciplinary process. The Grahams' impatience and repeated demands did not justify judicial intervention at this stage. The Court held that intervention or supervision of the Disciplinary Enquiry is only warranted in cases of clear unlawfulness, unreasonableness, or procedural unfairness, which was not established on the evidence. The Road Accident Fund was found to have a legitimate interest and was...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 207
Parties
Applicant: Jennifer Graham; Applicant: Matthew Graham; Applicant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces; Respondent: Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc; Respondent: Ronald Bobroff; Respondent: Darren Bobroff
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Case Number
61790/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Main Application, Counter Application, and Intervention
Outcome
Main application for declaratory order and court intervention dismissed; Disciplinary Enquiry to proceed; Law Society and Bobroffs ordered to provide information and inspection; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
SP Mothle
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Attorneys, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Contingency Fee Agreements, Overreaching, Trust Account Inspection
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Proceedings Against Attorneys Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Contingency Fee Agreements Overreaching Trust Account Inspection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Graham

Applicant

Matthew Graham

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Applicant

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc

Respondent

Ronald Bobroff

Respondent

Darren Bobroff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Main Application, Counter Application, and Intervention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Law Society failed to perform its statutory duties in investigating and prosecuting the complaint against the Bobroffs.
  2. 2 Whether the Court should intervene in or supervise the Law Society's Disciplinary Enquiry.
  3. 3 Whether the Bobroffs should be compelled to provide outstanding information and documents relevant to the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Law Society had not failed to perform its statutory duties in investigating the complaint against the Bobroffs. The Law Society followed prescribed procedures, referred the Faris report for consideration, and did not demonstrate bias or conflict in its handling of the disciplinary process. The Grahams' impatience and repeated demands did not justify judicial intervention at this stage. The Court held that intervention or supervision of the Disciplinary Enquiry is only warranted in cases of clear unlawfulness, unreasonableness, or procedural unfairness, which was not established on the evidence. The Road Accident Fund was found to have a legitimate interest and was...

Court Disposition

Main application for declaratory order and court intervention dismissed; Disciplinary Enquiry to proceed; Law Society and Bobroffs ordered to provide information and inspection; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The application for a declaratory order against the Law Society and for court intervention in the Disciplinary Enquiry is dismissed.
  • The Disciplinary Enquiry appointed by the Law Society is ordered to convene within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of this order.