Letters to the Editor 

• PO Box 36626, Menlo Park 0102   
• Docex 82, Pretoria  
• E-mail: derebus@derebus.org.za  
• Fax (012) 362 0969

Letters are not published under noms de plume. However, letters from practising attorneys who make their identities and addresses known to the editor may be considered for publication anonymously. 

The challenge is not on one

An alarm has been raised on the quality, or lack thereof, of newly qualified legal practitioners. The general consensus among experienced legal practitioners seems to suggest that the current LLB degree is not working. Hence the need to have the curriculum revised. Wits University became the first institution to ‘rectify the defect’ by restructuring the curriculum. I did not hear any reaction to this from the already qualified and practicing legal practitioners. For a person to qualify for an admission to an LLB degree, he or she should first complete an undergraduate degree. The LLB degree is now a postgraduate degree and takes two years to complete. The duration for both BCom Law and BA Law degrees is three years. Understandably, Wits listened to the concerns from members of the profession. Considering the provisions of s 26 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 a person aspiring to become a legal practitioner will (at Wits) first have to spend five years studying (ie, three years for BCom Law or BA Law and two years for an LLB), six months at the School for Legal Practice (which is optional) and one or two years of serving articles. 

The lengthening of the period to qualify as a legal practitioner will definitely have financial implications. It will now be more expensive to become a legal practitioner, which some are not going to afford. Unlike qualifications in other fields of practice, there might not be many bursaries available for law students. If all institutions were to follow the same route as Wits, the likelihood is that there will be less people from historically disadvantaged backgrounds qualifying as legal practitioners. It was for this reason that the degree was shortened in the first instance. 

One wonders if there are any other cheaper options out there to improve the quality of newly qualified legal practitioners. How about law firms and members of the Bar suggesting a uniform curriculum for the LLB degree for all institutions? Will it make a difference if law firms and members of the Bar were to make it part of their social responsibility to dedicate part of their time to having workshops with law students and lecturers at the institutions with the objective of closing the gap between the theory taught at the institutions and how things are actually done in the practice of law? It surely cannot be left entirely to the institutions to determine a proper way of improving the quality of Legal Practitioners. All stakeholders involved should not be silent on this issue. The situation should be treated with the urgency it deserves. 

Matimba Hlungwane, attorney, 
Johannesburg

Response from Legal Education and Development

I understand the concern of the writer. Access to the profession and a high standard of tuition to all are priorities for consideration of a new dispensation.

In 2014, the Council on Higher Education (CHE) launched a review of the standards for the LLB. Consultation took place widely and the attorneys’ profession made substantial input. In addition, the profession is actively involved in a task team with law deans, lecturers and other stakeholders who are looking at the issues that are raised by the writer.

The draft that serves before the CHE at the moment sets clear expectations with regard to the future curriculum.

No decision has been made with regard to the structure of the LLB, in fact I am aware that there are different views on the issue. The debate will continue, the impact on accessibility, financial in particular, will be a crucial factor.

The profession responded to the Wits decision, in fact, it engaged at national level with stakeholders and participated in a television debate on the issue.

The Wits degree, to the best of my knowledge, will not be a post-graduate degree. It is intended as a second degree. I am advised that the roll out is under consideration, inter alia, the issue of accessibility and the position of current students. Continuation must obviously take place in accordance with requirements of the Department of Higher Education.

In terms of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 (LPA), the future Legal Practice Council will have the power to contribute to the quality of the degree, on the same basis as currently allowed in terms Higher Education Act 101 of 1997.

The writer is correct in his plea for practitioners to be more involved. This will depend on faculty needs and practitioners’ availability and keenness to participate in academic programmes.

I am not of the view that the LPA is prescribing a longer academic programme. However, if a person has another, appropriate degree, then the LLB must be completed in not less than two years. It does not require another ‘first’ degree before or in addition to the LLB.

The elements for vocational practical training (s 26) must still be determined during the transitional process.

Nic Swart, Chief Executive Officer Law Society of South Africa, Director Legal Education and Development, 
Pretoria
How the RAF settles claims – the issue is broader than we may assume

I cannot help but agree with my colleague Leslie Kobrin (How the RAF settles claims 2015 (Jan/Feb) DR 5) on the manner in which the Road Accident Fund (RAF) tends to settle claims at the very last moment. This waste of taxpayers’ money also extends to other tax funded institutions that, by lack of timeous resolution of matters under litigation, tend to wait until the very last moment before conceding to certain obvious legal principles and facts. 

This practice unfortunately also extends to the office of the State Attorney and other similar institutions. In my view the practice emanates from lack of intensive training in assessment of legal issues and laxity in applying ones legal mind to the facts in issue. These institutions employ qualified professionals who are expected to be versed in legal intricacies. Secondly, the panel of attorneys who represent these institutions cannot hide behind the veil of lack of instructions. 

With the recent introduction of court-annexed mediation in the magistrate’s courts, I am waiting expectantly to see if these institutions will take the bait and be the first to utilise this progressive process.

Since these concerns have arisen on a number of occasions from time immemorial, as a way forward, I would suggest that a forum constituting, among others, practising attorneys, costs consultants, the RAF, the office of the State Attorney, the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, etcetera be convened to which concerns of this nature can be forwarded and addressed.

Andries Nthebe, attorney, 
Leondale