ENS (Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs) was instructed by Discovery Holdings to assist a number of the members of the Discovery Health Medical Scheme, who were former clients of Ronald and Darren Bobroff of Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc attorneys (“RBP”).  Discovery was concerned about the professional fees charged by RBP, and the impact of these fees on the compensation received by its clients.

We engaged with Ronald Bobroff and he assured us that a perusal of the relevant files would confirm that nothing untoward had happened whatsoever.

After some considerable difficulty, we were eventually granted access to the files, and we discovered that RBP had in fact entered into various fee arrangements with these clients which are highly unusual, and which have now been definitively described as illegal, in a judgment delivered on 19 October 2012 by Judge Boruchowitz in the matter of Tjatji v Road Accident Fund in the South Gauteng High Court.  

In all of these matters for Discovery members which we looked at, claims were instituted against the Road Accident Fund (“RAF”) for damages arising from injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents.
We ascertained that RBP took a fee of 40% of the damages paid by the RAF to the client, and in addition RBP appropriated the legal costs which the RAF paid.

This is illegal, as it contravenes the Contingency Fees Act, No 66 of 1997, which limits the success fee which an attorney may charge to double the attorney’s normal fee, or 25% of the damages, whichever is the lower amount.

We lodged a complaint on behalf of former clients, Mr & Mrs Graham, with the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (“LSNP”), that Ronald Bobroff and his son Darren of RBP had overreached their clients by charging fees substantially in excess of what is permissible or even legal.
Eighteen months later that complaint has still not been determined.

The complaint by our clients against Ronald and Darren Bobroff was considered by an investigating committee of the LSNP on 28 February 2012, and it recommended a host of charges (22 in total) against Ronald and Darren Bobroff of, inter alia, over-reaching, falsifying file notes, and claiming for attendances which had not taken place.

Both Ronald Bobroff and his son Darren have strenuously avoided answering the complaint, and they have failed to allow a proper inspection of the firm’s trust account or to provide access to material documents sought by our client.  It is a time-honoured principle that an attorney is bound to assist his or her law society by cooperating fully in response to a complaint.  Despite the fact that Ronald Bobroff, a councillor and former president of the LSNP, had never raised any objection to these procedures whilst they were applied to errant attorneys during his ten year tenure as councillor and president of the LSNP, unfortunately he and his son are now content to play possum in the face of the disciplinary process.

Furthermore, the LSNP has, at the behest of Ronald Bobroff, maintained for a number of years now that attorneys may charge fees in excess, and in violation, of the provisions of the Contingency Fees Act. This is a view which is not shared by the other provincial Law Societies.

In the circumstances our clients have a reasonable apprehension that their complaint may not be dealt with fairly by the LSNP or its council.

Accordingly Mr & Mrs Graham applied in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Thursday for an order to inspect the practice of RBP, and for the High Court to determine our clients’ complaint against Ronald and Darren Bobroff.

For further information, please contact:
George van Niekerk, Director, ENS: +27 82 414 4298
Annemarie Joubert, Senior Associate, ENS: +27 82 787 9503

Rachelle Bricout:  +27 82 339 4565 (media liaison)