The abuse of a Contingency Fees Agreement – An analysis of Legal Practice Council V Bulelani Rubushe (Case no 1004/2022) [2023] ZASCA 167 (1 December 2023)

Abstract

This article explores the reasoning of the Grahamstown High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal concerning the misconduct of a legal practitioner due to his non-compliance with the formalities for a valid contingency fees agreement. The Courts expressed concern at the “embedded” and “endemic” nature of misconduct by legal practitioners. Therefore, the Legal Practice Council and the Courts must deal with misconduct by legal practitioners consistently, predictably, and efficiently. The reasoning of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal reveals some similarities, but there are also apparent differences in tone and the sanctions imposed. The High Court found that an appropriate sanction was to suspend the legal practitioner. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal reasoned that the suspension from practice in isolation would almost certainly not transform a legal practitioner into a fit and proper person to practice in the future. The SCA thus determined that the name of the offending practitioner must be struck from the Roll of legal practitioners.