CONDUCT UNBECOMING

Ronald and Darren Bobroff’s law firm overcharged clients, abused trust fund money, failed to draw up bills for legal fees and failed to pay over money the firm received from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) within a reasonable time, inspectors from the Law Society of the Northern Provinces found when they inspected the files of the father-and-son firm.

Sibusiso Gule, the vice-president of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, says in affidavit filed in the Gauteng High Court as part of the matter between the Law Society, Ronald Bobroff and his son Darren and their former clients, Jennifer and Matthew Graham, that two auditors and chartered accountants found that, in contravention of the Attorney’s Act and the Law Society’s rules, the Bobroffs:

◆ Failed to ensure that money held in trust was kept separate from other money;

◆ Failed to ensure that when transferring money from their trust account to their business account, the amount transferred was identifiable and did not exceed what was owed to the firm;

◆ Failed to pay their clients the amounts due to them within a reasonable time;

◆ Failed to pay other practitioners, medical practitioners and other experts who assisted them in proving claims to the RAF the amounts they were owed;

◆ Failed to ensure that amounts drawn out of their trust account were only for or on behalf of creditors or their business bank account; and

◆ Were guilty of unprofessional, dishonourable or unworthy conduct by overcharging their clients.

Gule’s affidavit also says substantial payments from the RAF were transferred into temporary accounts. It says Ronald Bobroff explained this was done to avoid an tax audit owing to fluctuating VAT figures. Gule says this would not have been necessary if the firm’s tax affairs were in order.

The vice-president of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces says in the affidavit that substantial amounts of money were invested in an account that was not recorded as a trust creditor and the inspectors were of the view that this had been done to avoid tax.

His affidavit also notes that, in the cases of Bobroff & Partners’ former clients Filipe Pombo and Jeanne de la Guerre, the fees charged were not recorded in the accounting records, but were paid from the trust account. As a result, the firm’s VAT and income tax liabilities were understated.

Gule’s affidavit also notes that the Bobroffs entered into multiple-fee agreements with their clients and, in at least one case, fee agreements entered into were illegal.

In certain matters where contingency fee agreements were in place, clients were charged the maximum of 25 percent of the amount recovered, but there were no records of the time spent on the matter or a bill of costs, the affidavit says.

Gule says that, as a result, it is not clear how Bobroff & Partners ensured that it complied with the Contingency Fees Act, which requires lawyers to charge double what they would normally bill for the time spent on the case or 25 percent of the settlement, whichever is lower.

The Law Society was made aware in 2013 of an allegation that Darren Bobroff had countersigned a cheque for R142 660 made out to Filipe Pombo and deposited it into his personal bank account.

The money owed to Pombo was repaid to him in 2011 – two years after it was misappropriated. According to an affidavit by Pombo, Darren Bobroff said it had been mistakenly deposited into the wrong account.

But Gule says that when the inspectors asked for the Pombo file, they were informed that it had been destroyed. “This conduct can be considered to have been a deliberate attempt to avoid an inspection of the Pombo file,” Gule says.

The inspectors’ report has been referred to the Law Society's Disciplinary Department, but it is also the focus of the case brought by the Grahams to have Ronald and Darren Bobroff struck from the roll of attorneys.