court clears durban law firm directors 
08 September 2008
 
Six past and present directors of Durban law firm Meumann White have been cleared of touting allegations - and its relationships with an estate agency and mortgage originator deemed proper - by Deputy Judge President Philip Levinsohn.

"We are delighted," the firm said in a statement reacting to the ruling handed down on Friday.  "We have always believed that we had not in any way breached any of the law society's rules in our relationships with all of our clients and business partners."

The KwaZulu-Natal Law Society brought the application to strike off Maria Davey, Robert Findlay, Bruce Forrest, Richard Grant, Angela Ness-Harvey and Robert White, accusing them of touting for business. They all opposed the application, which was heard over two days before Judge Levinsohn, sitting with Durban advocate and acting Judge Barry Skinner, in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in June.

The case - considered a test of the law society's tough rules on how attorneys conduct their business has been closely watched by the profession and another similar application is pending against another firm in Johannesburg.  In his judgment, Levinsohn said he could find no traces of any wrongdoing.  The thrust of the law society's submissions were that the firm had improper relationships, in particular with Wakefields Estate Agency and MortgageSA.com, and were touting for conveyancing work.  The society cited sponsorships of conferences and awards, fees for website advertising and "service agreements" as proof of this. It was alleged that these were disguised forms of buying work.  However, the firm said this was legitimate marketing and advertising, and was completely above board.

"The advertising rule permits an attorney to publicise his or her practice. A specialist conveyancing firm such as Meumann White would seek to publicise its practice in the relevant market place. That market place, to my mind, is the property industry.  "I also find there is no evidence to suggest that the firm's expenditure taken as a whole is excessive or, more particularly their entertainment of clients is lavish," said Levinsohn, referring to evidence that the firm in one year spent R1,5-million (11,5 percent of turnover) on these items.

He firmly rejected the law society's allegations that the firm was "monopolising the market".   "In an open democratic society, which recognises free economic activity, it is almost monstrous to suggest that...larger firms should not be permitted to advertise on television or in the Sunday Times newspaper simply because their smaller rivals cannot afford to do likewise," the judge said.
The judge noted the significance of evidence that the firm received only about 30 percent of Wakefield's conveyancing work, "substantially less than one would have probably expected from a practice that is said to have an improper relationship with the estate agency".

He also noted evidence that the firm's efficiency and professionalism were the reasons for its success.  The judge said tradition dictated that in such matters law societies, as guardians of the profession, were never made to pay costs even when they were unsuccessful in court.

However, he left the door open for an appeal on this issue, particularly by Ness-Harvey, who, he noted had been head of the firm's family law division at the time and had had nothing to do with marketing or advertising.

This article was originally published on page 3 of The Mercury on September 08, 2008
 
Tania Broughton ,  www.iol.co.za