LAWYERS BEHAVING BADLY
here have recently been a few nasty incidents that have cast a pall over the judgment of several lawyers whose stock in trade should, after all, be good judgment.
The most notorious example took place last week, when Adam Anderson, the head of litigation at Bowmans, was captured on video lifting the dead body of his family dog, Mbali, from the boot of his Mercedes-benz, summarily dumping it in a quiet street in Kensington, then speeding off. The footage is alarming, as much for the nonchalant brutality as anything else.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was furious, immediately moving to lay criminal charges against him for illegal dumping.
In a letter to the SPCA, Anderson admitted he was “completely wrong” for his “unacceptable conduct” and offered to perform community service for animal rights groups.
Anderson’s employer acted swiftly enough, asking him to “step down from his management role with immediate effect”, though he’s still employed by the company.
One insider at the firm says it wasn’t so much the act itself that was the problem, but the poor judgment it reflected. “Adam’s reputation as a litigator is as good as any. But the cardinal sin, I believe, was the lack of judgment . . . Faced with several options, he chose the most expedient one,” the insider says.
In an internal memo, Bowmans chair Robert Legh says: “It goes without saying that it is increasingly hard to draw the line between personal and business matters. All of us . . . need to understand that conduct that offends our people or damages our reputation is wrong, unacceptable and will have serious consequences.”
But far worse in terms of poor judgment by lawyers is the behaviour of another Sandton firm, Hogan Lovells. And in that case, the law firm hasn’t apologised, taken any action, or tried to do the right thing.
TThe firm was hired by the SA Revenue Service to investigate misconduct by Jonas Makwakwa, deputy to commissioner Tom Moyane. Only, Hogan Lovells never actually investigated the real nub of the issue against him — R2.4m in “suspicious” deposits that flowed through his bank account, which some suspect were the result of corrupt activity. Instead, the firm charged Makwakwa with six tiny infractions in a disciplinary hearing, which he easily dodged, allowing Moyane to reinstate him. (Though Makwakwa subsequently quit a few weeks back.)
Documents, lucidly explained by Daily Maverick two weeks ago, reveal that while PWC had flagged R2.4m in suspicious payments into Makwakwa’s account between 2010 and 2016, he could explain only a measly R2,200 of this. Yet, Hogan Lovells didn’t ensure that Makwakwa was charged over the unexplained payments.
It seems to have been a disciplinary process retrofitted to ensure Makwakwa got off. But Hogan Lovells has disagreed, arguing it “could not investigate criminal matters”. This seems to be a stunning example of poor judgment.
These are, of course, isolated incidents. But this is an industry that holds itself to a higher standard than the rest of society.
It hasn’t helped that there have been plenty of scandals in the industry in recent years. Or that the body that speaks for the profession, the Law Society of SA, was in fact headed by one such rogue lawyer, Ronald Bobroff, before he fled to Australia amid a criminal investigation into ripping off the Road Accident Fund.
Last year, high court judge Natvarlal Ranchod said that “given the extent to which the Law Society accommodated the Bobroffs, members of the public can be forgiven for thinking that it is there to ‘protect its own’ ”.
If that’s the bar for public trust, then Bowmans can be commended for acting speedily and harshly. Hogan Lovells, of course, fails lamentably on this score. Which illustrates the point that all companies will have reputational issues to deal with — how they respond is what reveals most.