Pretoria - In a scathing attack on the Law Society of the Northern Provinces regarding its failure to act against its former president Ronald Bobroff and his son Darren Bobroff for close to five years, two judges on Thursday ruled that the society had to dig into its own pocket to foot the legal bill for some of the applications brought before court.
The series of ongoing applications before the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, dealing with the controversial Bobroffs, started in 2011. This was sparked by couple Jennifer and Matthew Graham who were left out of pocket following their run-ins with the Bobroffs.
The couple relentlessly asked the court to act against the Bobroffs, while the law society only years later and following a lot of public pressure, asked the court to strike the pair off the roll of attorneys.
Meanwhile, the legal bill escalated as various judges who dealt with these issues over the years, in a number of the applications, reserved judgment on who had to foot the legal bill.
In judgment delivered on Thursday, Judges Natvarlal Ranchod and Nicolene Janse van Nieuwenhuizen made it clear that the Grahams should not be out of pocket, as they acted in the public interest in asking the court to end the Bobroffs’ exploitation of their clients.
The judges, in no uncertain terms, voiced their concern that it took the society so long to act against its former president and his son.
While the court acknowledged that the Bobroffs’ unethical conduct warranted them to pay the bulk of the legal costs, the judges said the Law Society should also feel the brunt of its omission to act sooner.
In terms of the cost order in the cases where costs were reserved over the years, the judges ordered the society to foot 25% of the Grahams’ legal bill, while the Bobroffs had to pay the rest - 75%.
It is unclear whether the father and son would honour this order, as they fled to Australia in March last year. It is claimed that this sudden move came as they wanted to evade arrest by the Hawks regarding alleged fraud involving personal injury claims handled by them on behalf of their clients against the Road Accident Fund.
The Bobroffs, on the other hand, said they had left because of threats against them by unknown persons.
The pair were struck off the roll in December last year after they were declared no longer fit and proper to serve the law profession.
The court, over the years, heard evidence of how the pair overcharged clients.
The amounts involved ran into the millions and have been the subject of numerous civil lawsuits.
The history of the matter started in 2011, when their former clients, the Grahams, complained that they had been done in by the lawyers.
The Grahams initially turned to the court themselves to ask that the Bobroffs be struck from the roll, as the law society did nothing.
Judge Ranchod on Thursday commented that “the law society was tardy and could have acted much earlier, rather than engaging in prolonged discussions with the Bobroffs.
The judge said the society was obliged in terms of the Attorneys Act to act in cases where its members were accused of unprofessional conduct. While the court frowned upon the society’s initial reluctance to act against the Bobroffs, the judges said the latter’s (Bobroffs) conduct all along had been “egregious in the extreme and dishonourable” and they should thus carry the bulk of the legal costs.