Bobroff law firm turns to the Constitutional Court to prevent an inspection of its books

Personal injury lawyers Ronald Bobroff & Partners have appealed to the Constitutional Court against a High Court order that the Law Society of the Norther n Provinces should inspect the law firm’s books of account.

In April, Gauteng High Court judge Billy Mothle ordered the Law Society to inspect Bobroff & Partners’ books within 30 days and to hold a disciplinary hearing against Ronald Bobroff and his son Darren within 60 days of his ruling.

Before turning to the Constitutional Court, Bobroff & Partners unsuccessfully applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the order for the inspection.

Judge Mothle’s order was delivered in an application by a former Bobroff & Partners client and road accident victim, Matthew Graham. Graham turned to the court when the Law Society of the Northern Provinces failed to deal with his complaint that Bobroff ’s firm had overcharged him for assisting him to claim from the Road Accident Fund (RAF).

Graham and his wife, Jennifer, with legal assistance paid for by Discovery Health, asked the court to strike Bobroff and his son Darren from the roll of attorneys pending the Law Society’s decision on his complaint. As alternatives, the Grahams asked the court to compel the society to hear their complaint or to hold its own disciplinary hearing.

Judge Mothle set the deadline for the Law Society and ordered the inspection based on a forensic accountant’s report aired in the application. The accountant said he had found evidence that the Bobroff firm was not recording legal fees and was contravening the tax laws, company law and the Attorneys Act.

In their application for leave to appeal the order, Bobroff & Partners claimed that the High Court erred in ordering the inspection, and this was not the way to review the Law Society’s decision not to order an inspection.

In their appeal to the Constitutional Court, Bobroff & Partners say the inspection order infringes their constitutional right to privacy and dignity. They raise the issue of Discovery Health’s involvement in the case and allege that Discovery is using “its enor mous economic power to suppress publicity of its wrongdoing” in failing to alert its members to a rule that requires them to claim their medical expenses from a third party in cases such as road accidents.

The Grahams’ lawyer, George van Niekerk, is opposing the application, saying the investigation of Bobroff & Partners’ books is necessary and justified given the serious allegations of impropriety.

Bobroff ’s firm assists accident victims to claim from the RAF on a no-win, no-fee basis, for which the firm is entitled, in terms of the Contingency Fees Act, to charge double its fees or 25 percent of the payout, whichever, is lower. The RAF awarded Graham R1.9 million plus R300 000 in costs, but Bobroff ’s firm paid him only R1.1 million – less than 60 percent of the payout.

The fir m, founded by Ronald Bobroff, a former president of the Law Society, has also been found by the courts to have charged other road accident victims, Jeanne de la Guerre and Anthony de Pontes, more than the legal limits.

The firm argued that the Law Society had sanctioned lawyers charging so-called “common law” fees that exceeded the legal limits.

However, in De Guerre’s case last year, the full bench of the High Court ruled that attor neys may charge contingency fees only within the limits of the Act.

Bobroff & Partners has accused Discovery of conducting a vendetta against it. A recent article on the fir m’s website, “A shocking discovery for Discovery Medical Aid members – the real reason for Discovery’s vendetta against Ronald Bobroff and Ronald Bobroff & Partners exposed”, cites the scheme rule that requires members to recover medical expenses from a third party such as the RAF. The article says this means the scheme is responsible for your medical expenses only when you contract an illness.

This week, Discovery Health chief executive Dr Jonathan Broomberg reassured scheme members that Discovery Health Medical Scheme will pay their accident claims. He said the scheme is not enforcing the rule obliging you to claim your medical expenses from a relevant third party.

Discovery Health will not compel anyone to lodge a claim with the RAF, Broomberg says. However, should you decide to pursue a claim for damages with the RAF, and should the RAF award you medical expenses, the scheme will expect you to reimburse it any medical expenses you recover, he says.

Broomberg says the rules of Discovery Health Medical Scheme are based on model rules published by the Council for Medical Schemes.

The Council for Medical Schemes this week issued a statement saying that schemes have to pay legitimate claims within 30 days, but you can be required to refund your scheme if you receive any compensation for medical expenses from a third party.

It points out that Bobroff laid a complaint against Discovery Health Medical Scheme, but the complaint was dismissed and is now subject to an appeal.