A bench of three judges yesterday confirmed the verdict, which sees contingency fee agreements that do not comply with the Contingency Fees Act ruled invalid, reports IOL News.

Regulations

The judgments by Pretoria Judge President Dunstan Mlambo and Judges Hans Fabricius and Fayeeza Kathree-Setiloane mean that where there is a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement in a successful claim the lawyer is entitled to legal fees equal to only 25 per cent of the amount awarded.
The verdict saw local personal injury lawyer Ronald Bobroff return some of the fees charged to a Road Accident Fund (RAF) after his agreement was found invalid and the fees far exceeded the regulations of the act.
The judges also heavily criticised the South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Saapil), of which Mr Bobroff is a founder member.

Earmarked funds

Saapil asked that the act be declared unconstitutional, a request which was refused. However, Mr Bobroff said that both judgments would be appealed in the Constitutional Court.
Judge Kathree-Setiloane said: ‘If Saapil’s contentions are upheld, then a significant portion of funds earmarked for RAF victims would be claimed by their legal representatives.’

Best results

Mr Bobroff contended that verdict would affect many people who wanted to approach the court, but did not have the financial means to do so. He also claimed that lawyers working for a percentage rather than an hourly rate would push a case to obtain the best results for a client.
‘The reality is that many South Africans cannot afford litigation and they are happy if their lawyer represents them on a contingency fee basis,’ said Mr Bobroff. ‘This judgment deprives the public from negotiating with a lawyer… the act locks every attorney and client into a box.’