Abstract
This article explores the nature and extent of contingency-fee agreements in light of Justin John Bitter NO v Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc v The Road Accident Fund (Case Number 11069/13 (GLDJ)). The case in question viewed the nature of a contingency fee agreement and determined that a contingency fee agreement is only valid if it meets the requirements of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997. In addition, the court expressed itself strongly against the use of the so-called “common law contingency agreement”. This article analyses the case in question and then proceeds to evaluate the statutorily prescribed agreement. It argues that the Contingency Fees Act is not user-friendly and that the prescribed contingency fees agreement may be greatly improved by redrafting it in plain language. In addition, the new Legal Practice Act 2 of 2014 supports the sentiments that were expressed in the Bitter case, but as it does not repeal the Contingency Fees Act, problems with plain language and drafting of contingency fee agreements remain. While this article agrees with the Bitter case, it stresses that it is imperative for the contingency fee agreements to be redrafted in plain language, which implies an overhaul of the Contingency Fees Act. In the final instance it is recommended that even though contingency fee agreements are controversial, they do play an important part in providing indigent litigants with access to justice. These agreements should, however, be strictly enforced in order to ensure that clients are not exploited.
Highlights
A contingency fee agreement between a client and an attorney generally entails an understanding in terms of which the client undertakes to relinquishOBITER 2015 or pay a percentage of a settlement or award for damages that was made in his favour to the attorney
While this article agrees with the Bitter case, it stresses that it is imperative for the contingency fee agreements to be redrafted in plain language, which implies an overhaul of the Contingency Fees Act
The relief sought by the applicant against RBP is a declaratory order that the contingency agreement between RBP and Anthony’s parents was unlawful, invalid and unenforceable on the same grounds as those that were found by the full bench of the North Gauteng Court in the cases of Juan Elize De La Guerre v Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc[8] and the South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Road Accident Fund (“South African Personal Injury Lawyers (SAAPIL)”)[9] on 13 February 2013.10 The full bench in both these cases held that common-law contingency agreements between legal practitioners and their clients were unlawful, invalid and unenforceable
Summary
This article explores the nature and extent of contingency-fee agreements in light of Justin John Bitter NO v Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc v The Road Accident Fund (Case Number 11069/13 (GLDJ)). This article analyses the case in question and proceeds to evaluate the statutorily prescribed agreement It argues that the Contingency Fees Act is not user-friendly and that the prescribed contingency fees agreement may be greatly improved by redrafting it in plain language. While this article agrees with the Bitter case, it stresses that it is imperative for the contingency fee agreements to be redrafted in plain language, which implies an overhaul of the Contingency Fees Act. In the final instance it is recommended that even though contingency fee agreements are controversial, they do play an important part in providing indigent litigants with access to justice. In the final instance it is recommended that even though contingency fee agreements are controversial, they do play an important part in providing indigent litigants with access to justice These agreements should, be strictly enforced in order to ensure that clients are not exploited
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
