Angry state lawyers describe ‘chaos’ in office
Petition from attorney’s office complains of heavy workload and inexperienced advocates
A petition from staff at the Johannesburg state attorney’s office to the department of justice has described it as “a dysfunctional office which is at war with itself, and with its stakeholders”.
The state attorney’s office has been described as the largest law firm in the country. It represents the state and government departments, national and provincial, in their lawsuits and transactions. The Johannesburg office is its second biggest, after Pretoria.
Justice minister Ronald Lamola acknowledged in 2019 the state attorney’s office was in a “dire” state and warned that “government civil litigation, if not handled well, can prove to be a major threat to a country’s fiscal liability”.
But while the solicitor-general has sought to implement efficiency enhancing, critics said this only meant more red tape and less quality of service.
The petition, signed by 80 of the 110 staff, listed grievances, including that they are “collapsing under the pressure” of the workload, a lack of management support, a “cumbersome process” for briefing advocates, briefing incompetent and inexperienced advocates, invoice processing delays and “systems collapse”.
They described the situation when it came to the briefing of advocates as untenable.
“We cannot go on like this any further. When a matter is not attended to correctly, judges criticise us as state attorneys,” said the petition. State attorneys were registered with the Legal Practice Council and ran the risk of getting reported for misconduct, they said.
The petition referred to a recent judgment of Gauteng deputy judge-president Roland Sutherland, in which he referred to the “disgraceful way” a case was conducted by the state attorney. “The people of South Africa are ill-served by public servants who, in spending other people’s money, do not take proper care ... Such people who are responsible for this degree of dereliction ought not to be in office,” read the judgment.
The petition said that in briefing counsel, the state attorney had to consider its various responsibilities: improving the standard and experience of previously disadvantaged colleagues, ensuring clients are well represented, and getting value for money. All these had to be balanced and “a strategy is required of how this balance is to be achieved”. “However, what we are experiencing is an unfortunate situation of briefing of advocates without any consideration,” said the petition.
Attorneys had to correct work by advocates “and also be their mentors”. “We find ourselves carrying this added responsibility [and] all other work comes to a standstill and piles up and becomes unmanageable.”
The petition said on average, Johannesburg state attorneys had 6001,000 active files. “This is placing strain on our mental and physical health.” The Sunday Times spoke to two litigation attorneys in private practice, one from a big firm and the other from a smaller firm, who expressed shock at these numbers, describing them as “insane” and “ridiculous”. The large firm attorney said his team — two partners, two associates and four candidate legal practitioners — had perhaps 200 active matters between them at any given time. The other attorney said his firm had about 25 active cases.
The petition described the internal process for briefing advocates, involving a briefing committee, which suggests names of advocates who are then asked to tender for a brief. “Since a large number of advocates do not respond to these requests (some due to the strained relationship with our office), secretaries are required to do several follow-ups.”
But “this is unprocedural and defeats the purpose of the bidding system ... It also creates an impression that the bidding process is rigged.”
There were further internal steps, each of which involved the file going to different offices “for an unspecified duration of time”. In some instances it had taken “up to three-four months or more” to brief counsel. With urgent applications, “advocates are briefed when there is already no time left to consult and draft”.
“With the ever-growing workload as well as staff shortages in the office, the secretaries are stressed and strained.” Secretaries walked “up and down, carrying piles of files ... between the different floors looking for a working photocopier”, said the petition.
It details what is involved in paying an invoice. “There are instances where advocates remain unpaid for long durations of time with no explanation, even over a year.” This meant the office was not adhering to the Public Finance Management Act. “Further, the advocates are stakeholders of the office, and the manner in which they are treated damages the relationship between them and the office.”
All of this was worsened, it added, by the attitude of the head of office, Matshepo Mobeng, who did not communicate and was not available to guide or support staff.
Mobeng did not respond to a request for comment. It is understood there has been no response to the petition other than an acknowledgment of receipt. Lamola’s spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said the minister had “engaged the director-general and solicitor-general to receive a comprehensive update on the actions being taken to address the concerns”. He was “assured a detailed report will be delivered to him by the end of next week”.
Phiri said since 2019 there had been interventions to restructure how the state attorney’s office works but Lamola would also “begin a process to evaluate the efficiency of policies put in place to manage state litigation from the beginning”.