Why haven't you acted against lawyers using Stalingrad tactics to obstruct justice?
Until a court actually indicates that the tactics being used are frivolous or vexatious, they are within their rights to use the court processes in this way.
Isn't it a breach of the code of legal conduct to do anything that makes a mockery of the legal system?
In a constitutional democracy, you have the right to access the court and use court processes. Exercising this right does not constitute misconduct.
Even if it turns our legal system into a joke?
That is [Budlender's] opinion. As long as the court allows the process to continue, it means from the court's point of view there is legitimacy to the process. The mere fact that you're using the court process [in that way] doesn't mean we can act against you.
Isn't there a point where you decide it's harming the integrity of our legal system, and isn't that when you need to come in?
The court is the ultimate guardian of their own processes. If the court allows the process to continue, we cannot step in.
Isn't it a breach of the code of conduct you're legally obliged to enforce?
If it can be proved it's a tactic to circumvent the court's functions, then, yes, in my view it would be misconduct.
Do you believe it's brought our legal system into disrepute?
Not necessarily the legal system, but I think what it brings into disrepute is the reputation of legal practitioners in general.
Isn't that precisely why the LPC needs to act against the lawyers concerned?
I think where the integrity of the profession is impugned, definitely there is scope for us to act, and we should do so.
Why have you barred only 175 lawyers from practising when more than 21,000 complaints of serious misconduct have been laid against them?
Not all complaints are about serious misconduct. Some involve not responding to correspondence on time.
How many involve lawyers stealing money from clients?
We're looking at about 485.
Why does it take you so long to act against them?
Attorneys, like everybody else, have access to the courts. The most infamous case is that of [Zuko] Nonxuba. That matter is complicated by the fact that there's a simultaneous SIU investigation.
That shouldn't have affected your own investigation, should it?
Our investigations continue, but our mandate is not the investigation of fraudulent claims.
Isn’t it your mandate to protect and assist the victims of fraudulent lawyers — in this case, 11 severely disabled children from whom he allegedly stole R198m of medical settlements?
Absolutely.
Didn't a prominent retired judge find the LPC had done little or nothing to protect or assist them?
That is the allegation, but we only became fully enabled to deal with this matter after a Constitutional Court judgment in August.
Are you saying that dealing with unscrupulous lawyers necessarily takes for ever?
There's always room for improvement.
Isn’t it your legal obligation to make sure that this improvement happens?
We move as fast as we can, but to make changes to legislation is not a quick process.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.