Maite v Borman Duma Zitha Attorneys (Johannesburg, 2023) -- The advocate claimed unpaid invoices; the firm argued duplication and disagreement on rates.
Dayanand-Jugroop v Ngento (Gauteng, 2024) -- Advocate sued for fees; attorney alleged overreaching. These are only some of the visible ones. Beyond the law reports, similar disputes are filed and then resolved before judgment -- settled at the door, withdrawn, or diffused after pre-action letters. They leave no precedent -- only delay, cost, and distrust that practitioners
across chambers know too well. Judicial sentiment has been blunt for years: it is, as one judgment put it, "a sad day for the legal profession" when professional conduct fails its own standards.
A discipline of precision now runs on brittle admin. The trouble starts at inception: briefs are opened on the strength of a call or a WhatsApp, and the mandate never fully hardens -- scope, fee basis, and timelines remain implied rather than expressed. When a matter later turns, each side reaches for a different memory of what was agreed.
From there, the record splinters. Emails sit in one folder, draft notes in another, voice notes on a phone, and a spreadsheet only one person maintains. With no shared audit trail, silence is misread as neglect and delay as refusal.