LPC doesn’t believe there is conflict of interest
The closure of deceased East London attorney Graeme Bell’s law practice has raised a question over whether another law firm that was interested in a commercial stake in the practice was conflicted when it accepted the Legal Practice Council’s mandate to take legal custody of Bell’s client files.
The LPC regulates all legal practitioners in the country and, because there was no other director or certified legal practitioner in Bell’s firm, Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Attorneys (CCBR), when he died in July, it was obliged to secure its multimillion-rand trust account.
The LPC was appointed as curator bonus over CCBR by the high court in August, to take administrative control of the firm and especially of the significant sums of money held in trust accounts.
It appointed Angus Pringle of Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Attorneys (DFO) as its agent to take custody of the CCBR client files, to advise clients of their right to appoint an attorney of their own choice to represent them, or to mandate Pringle to continue representing them.
Shortly after Bell’s death, his close friend and business associate, Clive Berlyn, wrote to 15 local law firms, including DFO, asking if they had any interest in acquiring CCBR as a going concern.
“I was not prepared to look at a slash and burn option. By about the third week in August it was clear [Pringle] wasn’t going to proceed with any offer.”
He suggested that through the LPC appointment Pringle would now achieve what he had been unable to secure during those discussions.
In an August 1 letter to Berlyn, Pringle confirmed “our intention is not to obtain the business” of the firm, nor “the name or corporate identity of the business or the property”.
“We would be interested in acquiring the securities held by [the firm], and that should we be appointed as executor and [sic] any estate arising from those securities, that we could enter into a fee-sharing arrangement with” Bell’s widow and executrix of his estate Colleen Bell.
Pringle also wrote that he had already communicated with the LPC regarding the appointment of a curator to control the trust account.
Pringle and DFO senior partner Richard Jardine strenuously denied that a conflict of interest existed, or that the agency mandate potentially gave DFO the same opportunity it had sought in discussions with Berlyn.
Pringle told the Dispatch his discussions with Berlyn were aimed at “assisting the family”.
Shortly after Bell’s passing, he said he was “asked to step in because there were a number of very urgent [clients’] matters which needed attention ... which I did”.
“I’ve done nothing but assist that firm and the clients of that firm. Many of those files have left our firm and gone to various other attorneys in town.
“Clients have a free choice to decide what happens to their files.
“I’m saying to you that there is no conflict of interest,” Pringle said.
Jardine, said: “There’s a lot of misconception that we have taken over Graeme’s firm. It’ sa hang of a lot of leg work [to take custody of client files].
“It’s not a commercially viable thing to do. It’s dangerous to speculate how a client might choose — to take the file to another attorney of their choice, or to leave it with our firm to continue to do work for them.”
It was “distasteful to us” for Berlyn to suggest that Pringle had acted in an unprincipled manner.
One attorney who asked to remain anonymous said it was possible that a client approached by Pringle as LPC agent about appointing another attorney might suggest that DFO consider doing the work.
“That’s a natural consequence of [DFO] being in possession of [the file] at the time that the person comes to make their choice.”
The LPC said its Eastern Cape director Alfred Hona had no knowledge of the discussions between Berlyn and Pringle, but “we do not believe that there is any conflict of interest”.