we solicitors llp’s Post

Before you appoint an attorney check with the LPC that the attorney is in good standing and has not been suspended or struck off the roll. This type of conduct happens far too regularly.

ARE YOU CAUSING OR ALLEVIATING COURT BACKLOGS? WHY FINALIZING DISPUTES SHOULD BE A PRIORITY? Finalizing disputes, regardless of the outcome, is indeed a critical responsibility for all legal representatives. The focus on resolution is paramount for several reasons: 1) Legal Certainty and Stability: Finalizing disputes brings closure to legal matters, ensuring certainty in law. It upholds the principle that justice must be seen to be done, preventing prolonged uncertainty for both parties. 2) Efficient Use of Judicial Resources: Prolonged disputes can drain judicial resources and contribute to court backlogs. Finality ensures that resources are freed up for other cases. 3) Cost-Effectiveness: For clients, protracted disputes lead to increased legal costs, emotional strain, and wasted time. A finalized dispute helps manage costs and reduce unnecessary litigation. 4) Upholding Professional Responsibility: Lawyers have a duty to act in their clients' best interests, which includes not only advocating for their position but also ensuring that disputes are resolved efficiently. Legal professionals should encourage their clients to accept settlements, judgments, or other forms of dispute resolution when they align with the best interests of all involved. 5) Promoting Justice: Justice is not merely about winning a case but ensuring that disputes are resolved fairly and conclusively. A focus on finality allows for disputes to be settled in a manner that serves both the legal system and society. Thus, ensuring finality in disputes, regardless of the outcome, enhances the integrity of the legal process and is an essential ethical duty for legal representatives. If you are struggling to secure a hearing date or have secured a date too far in the distant future, the Parties can reach an agreement in writing to refer the matter to ADR ACCESS for arbitration. These matters can be enrolled within 7 to 14 working days from the filing and payment of the agreed upon fees. If you cannot on a day for whatever reason continue, the Parties can also agree in writing to refer the matter to ADR ACCESS for arbitration. These matters can be enrolled within 3 hours from the filing of the papers on ADR ACCESS. We have a highly competent and experienced panel of Arbitrators who are available to hear disputes once appointed. The panel consists of retired judges, acting judges, senior and junior advocates, senior and junior attorneys and a range of experts within various fields of industry. Creating a profile and lodging your application is free of any costs. Costs are only incurred once the Parties have reached and signed a written agreement referring the dispute for Arbitration to ADR ACCESS. For more information contact the Registrar at 076 727 8868 or view our website at www.adraccess.co.za.

Mediation / Arbitration is the way to go.

Q. What's the difference between a legal practitioner, a lawyer, a solicitor and a barrister?   A. In Australia, an Australian Legal Practitioner is a term used to refer to someone who is qualified to give legal advice and represent clients in legal matters, is admitted to one of the state rolls of legal practitioners and holds a current practicing certificate from a state law society or bar association (unless exempted from having to hold a PC).   They are also colloquially referred to as lawyers.   Lawyers in Australia can practice as either solicitors or barristers, or they may be a combination of both depending on which state they are admitted in.   A solicitor is a lawyer who typically deals with the practical aspects of legal work, such as providing legal advice, negotiating contracts, preparing legal documents, and representing clients in court.   Solicitors usually work in law firms, and they may specialise in a particular area of law, such as employment law, criminal law, family law, or property law.   A barrister, on the other hand, is a lawyer who largely specialises in representing clients in court.   Barristers typically have more experience and expertise in court procedure and advocacy than solicitors, although a lot of court advocacy in Tribunals and lower courts is done by solicitor advocates.   Barristers are often called upon to provide specialist legal advice and representation in complex or high-stakes cases.   In Australia, barristers typically work independently, rather than in law firms, and they are often referred to as "Counsel."   A very senior barrister may also be appointed as Kings Counsel (KC), or Senior Counsel (SC), depending on which state they are admitted in. This is recognition of the barrister's seniority, experience and leadership within the Bar.   Although barristers can accept briefs directly from a client in some circumstances, they are usually "instructed" (ie. engaged) by a solicitor on behalf of their client.   Just to confuse things even more, the position of a senior solicitor one level below that of Director/Partner in many laws firms, including my own firm, is called “Special Counsel”.   So, in general, the main difference between solicitors and barristers in Australia is the type of work they do and the stage at which they become involved in a case.   Finally, qualified lawyers also work in government departments, as in-house Counsel within private and public companies and in community legal centres.   Have I missed anything?   --- Please feel free to repost this post by tapping the 🔁 button below if you think your connections would get value from it. You can repost with or without adding your own observations on the topic.   #employmentlaw #pointyendofhr #humanresources #law

ARE YOU CAUSING OR ALLEVIATING COURT BACKLOGS? WHY FINALIZING DISPUTES SHOULD BE A PRIORITY? Finalizing disputes, regardless of the outcome, is indeed a critical responsibility for all legal representatives. The focus on resolution is paramount for several reasons: 1) Legal Certainty and Stability: Finalizing disputes brings closure to legal matters, ensuring certainty in law. It upholds the principle that justice must be seen to be done, preventing prolonged uncertainty for both parties. 2) Efficient Use of Judicial Resources: Prolonged disputes can drain judicial resources and contribute to court backlogs. Finality ensures that resources are freed up for other cases. 3) Cost-Effectiveness: For clients, protracted disputes lead to increased legal costs, emotional strain, and wasted time. A finalized dispute helps manage costs and reduce unnecessary litigation. 4) Upholding Professional Responsibility: Lawyers have a duty to act in their clients' best interests, which includes not only advocating for their position but also ensuring that disputes are resolved efficiently. Legal professionals should encourage their clients to accept settlements, judgments, or other forms of dispute resolution when they align with the best interests of all involved. 5) Promoting Justice: Justice is not merely about winning a case but ensuring that disputes are resolved fairly and conclusively. A focus on finality allows for disputes to be settled in a manner that serves both the legal system and society. Thus, ensuring finality in disputes, regardless of the outcome, enhances the integrity of the legal process and is an essential ethical duty for legal representatives. If you are struggling to secure a hearing date or have secured a date too far in the distant future, the Parties can reach an agreement in writing to refer the matter to ADR ACCESS for arbitration. These matters can be enrolled within 7 to 14 working days from the filing and payment of the agreed upon fees. If you cannot on a day for whatever reason continue, the Parties can also agree in writing to refer the matter to ADR ACCESS for arbitration. These matters can be enrolled within 3 hours from the filing of the papers on ADR ACCESS. We have a highly competent and experienced panel of Arbitrators who are available to hear disputes once appointed. The panel consists of retired judges, acting judges, senior and junior advocates, senior and junior attorneys and a range of experts within various fields of industry. Creating a profile and lodging your application is free of any costs. Costs are only incurred once the Parties have reached and signed a written agreement referring the dispute for Arbitration to ADR ACCESS. For more information contact the Registrar at 076 727 8868 or view our website at www.adraccess.co.za.

Examining Witnesses in Malaysia: A Legal Overview In the Malaysian legal system, examining witnesses is a critical aspect of court proceedings, playing a pivotal role in the pursuit of justice. Understanding the procedures and nuances of witness examination is essential for both legal practitioners and individuals involved in the judicial process. Witness examination in Malaysia follows a structured framework, typically comprising two main phases: direct examination and cross-examination. Direct Examination: During direct examination, the party who called the witness (the "examination-in-chief") has the opportunity to question the witness first. The purpose of direct examination is to elicit evidence that supports the party's case. In Malaysia, the examination-in-chief is conducted by the party's own counsel or legal representative. The witness is questioned through open-ended queries, allowing them to provide detailed and narrative responses. The questions should be non-leading, meaning they should not suggest the desired answer. The examination-in-chief aims to establish the facts of the case and present evidence in a clear and coherent manner. Cross-Examination: Following direct examination, the opposing party has the right to cross-examine the witness. Cross-examination serves to challenge the witness's testimony, credibility, and the evidence presented during direct examination. In Malaysia, cross-examination is conducted by the opposing party's counsel. During cross-examination, the questioning is typically more pointed and adversarial compared to direct examination. The cross-examiner may ask leading questions, highlight inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, or probe for bias or ulterior motives. The goal is to undermine the witness's credibility and weaken the opposing party's case. Rules and Procedures: In Malaysia, witness examination is governed by rules and procedures established in the Evidence Act 1950 and the Rules of Court. These regulations outline the permissible methods of questioning, the admissibility of evidence, and the conduct of both direct examination and cross-examination. It's essential for legal practitioners to adhere to these rules to ensure a fair and impartial examination of witnesses. Failure to comply with procedural requirements may result in objections from opposing counsel or the exclusion of evidence by the presiding judge. Conclusion: Examining witnesses in Malaysia is a carefully orchestrated process aimed at uncovering the truth and ensuring the fair administration of justice. Through direct examination and cross-examination, parties present their evidence and challenge the testimony of opposing witnesses. By understanding the procedures and rules governing witness examination, legal practitioners can effectively advocate for their clients and contribute to the integrity of the Malaysian legal system. #legal #advocacy #lawyer #law #malaysia #advocate #courts #rulesofcourt #witness

Achieving the Perfect Balance of Services in Civil and Criminal Law In the complex world of legal practice, achieving a Balance of Services in civil and criminal law is crucial. This balance involves a broad spectrum of legal assistance, from providing legal advice and representation to managing intricate legal processes. The challenge lies in adapting these services to the specific demands of civil and criminal law cases. Civil Law Services: A Spectrum of Dispute Resolution and Rights Protection In civil law, legal services encompass a wide array of domains, including family law, property disputes, and contract law. Here, legal professionals serve as more than just legal advisors; they are mediators, n... #AffordableLegalHelp. #Arbitration #BalanceofServices #casemanagement #CivilLegislation #ContractLaw #CriminalDefense #DefenseStrategy #DigitalCaseSystems #disputeresolution #EvidenceScrutiny #FairTrial #FamilyLaw #JusticeSystem #LegalAccessibility #LegalAdvice #LegalAid #LegalProcedures #LegalRepresentation #LegalServices #legaltechnology #Litigation #mediation #OffenseAgainstState #OnlineConsultation #PleaBargaining #ProBonoServices #PropertyDisputes #ProsecutorialChallenge #RightProtection #RightsAdvocacy #SettlementNegotiation #VirtualCourtroom #WitnessCrossExamination

RATHER MEDIATE THAN FIGHTING HOPELESS CASES – AVOID THE RISKS Hopeless cases occur not only when the legal practitioners think cases are hopeless but also when the practitioner has knowingly lent himself to an abuse of process or improper time-wasting. The duty of legal practitioners not to take on hopeless cases stems from their ethical obligation to provide competent and effective representation to their clients. While lawyers have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must also act with honesty and integrity. Taking on a case that has little to no chance of success not only wastes the client's time and resources but also undermines the reputation of the legal profession. Legal practitioners are generally expected to assess the merits of a case before agreeing to represent a client and should decline representation if the likelihood of success is slim. It's crucial for legal practitioners to maintain their professional judgment and not allow clients to pressure them into pursuing litigation when the case is hopeless. While clients may understandably have strong emotions invested in their legal matters, lawyers have a duty to provide objective advice based on their legal expertise and assessment of the case's merits. Moreover, accepting hopeless cases, whatever the motivation, cannot only  lead to potential malpractice claims but more recently there has been a tendency by the Courts to grant de bonis propriis orders against legal practitioners. In the recent UNISA case of the University of South Africa v Socikwa and Others (J 675/23; J 680/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 172, Acting Judge Sethene delivered a scathing judgment condemning legal practitioners who proceed with hopeless cases, which waste court resources, demean the profession and which are brought solely for financial benefit and at odds with their client’s best interests. Sethene AJ made a punitive costs order, directing that the legal practitioners would not charge any fee for legal services rendered and that any payment already received would be reimbursed to their clients. We urge legal practitioners to do the right thing when approached by a client with a hopeless case by advising them to avoid litigation and consider finding an amicable outcome through mediation and if the client is adamant in pursuing litigation, not to accept the instruction. The financial risk for your practice and damage to your personal reputation by continuing with litigation is simply not worth it. The ADR UBUNTU mediation platform has been designed and developed to ensure a simple, effortless, affordable and memorable experience for all users, individuals and businesses when it comes to resolving their disputes without going to Court. For more information visit www.adrubuntu.co.za or contact the Registrar at 076 727 8868.

RATHER MEDIATE THAN FIGHTING HOPELESS CASES – AVOID THE RISKS Hopeless cases occur not only when the legal practitioners think cases are hopeless but also when the practitioner has knowingly lent himself to an abuse of process or improper time-wasting. The duty of legal practitioners not to take on hopeless cases stems from their ethical obligation to provide competent and effective representation to their clients. While lawyers have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must also act with honesty and integrity. Taking on a case that has little to no chance of success not only wastes the client's time and resources but also undermines the reputation of the legal profession. Legal practitioners are generally expected to assess the merits of a case before agreeing to represent a client and should decline representation if the likelihood of success is slim. It's crucial for legal practitioners to maintain their professional judgment and not allow clients to pressure them into pursuing litigation when the case is hopeless. While clients may understandably have strong emotions invested in their legal matters, lawyers have a duty to provide objective advice based on their legal expertise and assessment of the case's merits. Moreover, accepting hopeless cases, whatever the motivation, cannot only lead to potential malpractice claims but more recently there has been a tendency by the Courts to grant de bonis propriis orders against legal practitioners. In the recent UNISA case of the University of South Africa v Socikwa and Others (J 675/23; J 680/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 172, Acting Judge Sethene delivered a scathing judgment condemning legal practitioners who proceed with hopeless cases, which waste court resources, demean the profession and which are brought solely for financial benefit and at odds with their client’s best interests. Sethene AJ made a punitive costs order, directing that the legal practitioners would not charge any fee for legal services rendered and that any payment already received would be reimbursed to their clients. We urge legal practitioners to do the right thing when approached by a client with a hopeless case by advising them to avoid litigation and consider finding an amicable outcome through mediation and if the client is adamant in pursuing litigation, not to accept the instruction. The financial risk for your practice and damage to your personal reputation by continuing with litigation is simply not worth it. The ADR UBUNTU mediation platform has been designed and developed to ensure a simple, effortless, affordable and memorable experience for all users, individuals and businesses when it comes to resolving their disputes without going to Court. For more information visit www.adrubuntu.co.za or contact the Registrar at 076 727 8868.

TWO REASONS WHY I THINK LAW CHAMBERS SHOULD PARTNER OR COLLABORATE WITH MEDIATORS! 🤔 *COURT VACATIONS I remembered, when I worked with a law firm as a secretary, Immediately the court is on holiday is like some practicing Chambers are automatically on holiday too. I know vividly that some lawyers or Chambers are yet to structure or accommodate mediation in their practice. At this Juncture, where there is court holidays what happens? Pendency in cases! You can add your own list. In my humble opinion I believe not all matters are meant for Court proceedings, some court and Judges are already overwhelmed with too many pending cases. Let's give ADR a trial ! Instead of filing matters waiting for Court resumption, you can refer matters to Mediators or mediation, try to collaborate to help people get a quick service for conflict resolution. I know nothing goes for nothing, your referrals can also involve some legal fees unless the mediator or mediation service provider is your close friend. 🤩🤩 *MEDIATION IS QUICKER THAN WAITING FOR TRIALS I remembered vividly, some days I had followed my former boss then to court, I was attentively listening to the Judge. All of sudden, you can hear the Judge say, "PLEASE CAN YOU STOP WASTING THE PRECIOUS TIME OF THIS HONORABLE AND PRECIOUS COURT " 😁 In my mind, I had thought is because the claimants or plaintiffs were not outspoken and you know some Judges don't have time. And some times, when I hear please don't waste the time of this honorable Court, I start thinking why are there too many court adjournment, too many pending cases, too many people awaiting trials, too many people waiting for an appeal in the court. Mediation process is customised to met party needs and is less intimidating than often appearing in court. Mediation helps us to discover real issues. Mediation helps to improve the future rather than dissecting the past. Let's try to lessen the burden in court already by giving ADR a quick trial! #mediationenthusiasts #mediationasaconflictresolutionmethod