Cape Town - A struggling, divorced mother had to use her food money to pay off the R10 000 that an online legal adviser wanted, to secure an increase in her maintenance.
The adviser accepted payments of R500 a month, and although she eventually managed to pay off the R10 000, she received nothing in return, she alleged in a court in Cape Town on Monday.
Kathleen Morris testified at the trial of attorney Hugh Pollard, 64, who has pleaded not guilty to five counts of fraud, in the Specialised Commercial Crime Court in Bellville, Cape Town, before magistrate Sabrina Sonnenberg.
Pollard is in fact a qualified attorney, but may not practice because his name was struck from the Attorneys’ Roll.
Questioned by prosecutor Simone Liedeman, Morris said she responded to an advertisement placed by Pollard in a newspaper, in the name of The Legal Advice Office.
She had discussed her plight with Pollard by telephone, but had never met him, she told the court.
Because she had never seen Pollard before, she mistook court reporter Bert van Hees, 72, for him.
As she entered the court room, and made her way to the witness stand, she passed Van Hees seated on a bench in the well of the courtroom.
As she passed him, she turned to him with an expression of disgust, and asked him loudly: “Are you Pollard?”
Van Hees said he was not, but Morris had her doubts until the magistrate pointed out that Pollard was the accused seated in the dock.
Morris told the court: “The accused perused the document relating to the maintenance order, and then remarked to me that he was pleased that he was not a woman.”
“I said I would like to meet him, but he refused, so I never had a face-to-face discussion with him.”
After she had paid off the R10 000, but had heard nothing from Pollard, she asked him what the next step would be.
She said Pollard wanted information about her former husband, that she could only obtain by engaging a private investigator, at extra cost to herself.
She added: “I told the accused I could not afford the expense, and wanted to terminate his mandate instead, and that I wanted my money back.
“The accused said I could not get my money back, because he had already done what he had to do, and I said you have done absolutely nothing.”
Asked by the prosecutor if she ever received her money back, she replied: “No, I did not – not one cent.”
Defence attorney Eben Klue pointed out that the purpose of the divorce document that she had signed, was to curtail her rights to an increase in maintenance.
Asked if she had been satisfied with the text of the document, she replied: “Yes, at the time of signing I was.”
Klue pointed out that she had in fact consented, in writing, to her maintenance being limited.
Morris claimed she was blackmailed into signing the document.
The case continues on Tuesday.
ANA