Misinformed on law

DEAR SIR — Mario Oriani-Ambrosini (Bring SA’s lawyers in line with modern world, April 2) is incorrect when he states that “the system forces clients to hire three lawyers to perform work attended to by one lawyer almost anywhere else in the world”, presumably in litigious matters.

There is no rule in law or practice that forces this upon a client. Most standard matters are dealt with by attorneys only or by an attorney and a junior advocate. Only in exceptional matters that are complex or involve considerable interests are senior counsel engaged (and only if a client wants it).

Advocates are not awarded senior status at the Bar based on their years of service or age, but on the number of complex and important matters they have dealt with. A senior advocate will have considerable experience of difficult matters, which a junior advocate would probably not have.

The requirements set by the Bar to apply for senior status alone prove Mr Oriani-Ambrosini wrong in this regard. Senior advocates are thus more expensive because they are better equipped to deal with difficult cases.

Mr Oriani-Ambrosini mentions that there are aspects of how our lawyers conduct themselves that “would seem incestuous and repugnant” to US and European lawyers, and he substantiates this statement by mentioning that there are advocates who are more concerned with what their colleagues think of them than representing their clients’ interests to the fullest. He also mentions that lawyers address each other and judges by titles. This seems to be mudraking argumentum ad hominem designed to whip up negativity sentiment towards lawyers.

All lawyers can be sued for professional negligence and are thus accountable to their clients in this manner. Mr Oriani-Ambrosini is either misinformed about the legal profession in SA or simply lying about aspects thereof. His general tendency to make negative statements against lawyers and not provide proof is striking.

With regard to reforming our supposedly too-expensive legal system, I would suggest simply increasing the cut a lawyer can take in terms of contingency legislation and introducing punitive damages into our legal system so wronged clients can be awarded more damages, which would offset the high contingency fees claimed by lawyers. This would benefit both clients and their counsel as well as act as a strong disincentive to potential wrongdoers. Has Parliament looked into this?

Adv Verlaine de Wit

Sandton