Mungo Soggot
Advocates at the Johannesburg Bar are smarting after finding themselves at the receiving end of hefty legal fees.
The ruling council of South Africa’s biggest Bar has decided to charge its advocate members for an R850 000 high court application to expel one of their colleagues over tax irregularities.
The costly high court action went ahead despite an earlier decision by the General Council of the Bar, which oversees all regional bar councils, that the explusion order against the advocate – Chris Edeling – be reversed.
The Bar council has now ordered each of its members to pay a “striking-off application levy” of R1 400 a month for the next six months.
Disgruntled advocates say that although the levy does not break Bar rules, they should have been consulted on the high court application. Two circulars have been sent around by concerned Johannesburg advocates and a special Bar council meeting will be held on August 14.
Edeling was found guilty by an internal disciplinary inquiry of the Johannesburg Bar in October 1995. The Bar council held fire on his expulsion while he appealed to the General Council of the Bar.
Despite the ruling in Edeling’s favour, the Johannesburg Bar Council forged ahead with its high court action. The case was being concluded this week.
The Bar has been represented by four advocates, including three senior counsel. It is customary for advocates acting for their peers to work for free, although there is precedent to charge for lengthy matters.
But the only member of the team who did not charge was Wim Trengove, SC, of the Legal Resources Centre. The other three – Andr Gautschi, SC, Altus Joubert, SC, and Anthony Thompson – charged two-thirds of their normal rate.
In a circular explaining the striking-off levy to members of the Johannesburg Bar, Johann Gautschi, SC, (Andr Gautschi’s brother), says: “I wish to use this opportunity to convey to members of the Society [of Advocates] the great appreciation for the arduous task which the legal team performed on behalf of the Bar for no remuneration in the case of Trengove, SC, and partly pro amico and at reduced remuneration in the case of other members of the team.”
Gautschi said this week: “It would be unfair to expect members to give up six weeks free of charge. Working at reduced fees is a substantial sacrifice.” He said the nature of the levy was likely to be refined in the light of next week’s meeting.
One of the petitions, penned by Edeling’s sister Doris, who is also an advocate, complains about the decision to go to the high court after the general council decision.
The stiff charges come when the Bar’s cash reserves are being drained by recently established plush chambers in the northern suburb of Sandton.
Advocates are also complaining about a proposed levy to fund losses at the new chambers which could change the collegiate spirit of the Bar.
One senior counsel from another Bar said the furore surrounding the levies could encourage younger members of the Bar to leave and set up rival chambers or work from home.