Criticizing courts or judges is a tricky thing. Not that the lot at Luthuli House would notice. I was reminded again of how tricky it is to criticize judges responsibly when I read the judgment of acting Judge President Janet Traverso in the case brought against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) by the Law Society of South Africa and Others.
Last week’s (RAF) chief executive, Jacob Modise, accused Traverso of bias saying that the hearing was “doomed from the beginning”, and accusing Traverso of “already having made up her mind” on the outcome of the matter. According to IOL he continued:
“The RAF questions the reasons why the hearing was brought to the Cape (high court) Division when the RAF headquarters are in Gauteng. The judge did not allow the RAF counsel enough time to state his case. What was seen in court was a complete disappointment.”
Turning his sights on the Law Society of SA, Modise said it had “continuously insulted the ordinary people”. He added: “(The Law Society) says they are semi-literate and have never owned bank accounts. They have also said that claimants who have received large sums of money will squander or steal it. There is no more racist statement than that.”
Although I found Modise’s language a bit too intemperate, my gut reaction was that he might have a point. Was this not perhaps a case of lawyers protecting their own, I wondered? And was the arguments by lawyers that poor people would suffer if the present system – which allows lawyers to take RAF cases for clients on contingency basis – not merely self-serving drivel to protect their income stream?
Let’s face it, lawyers make lots and lots of money out of the RAF system and although many clients benefit from the arrangement that allows lawyers to take their RAF cases on contingency basis, the whole system seems wasteful and inefficient to me. Why can’t they devise a system that cut out the lawyers altogether?
I still hold these views and I am still a bit skeptical of the motives of the lawyers to bring this application. Can’t imagine they would have brought the application if only their client’s interests and not their own financial interests were at stake.
But after reading the Traverso judgment, it seems clear that Modise was criticising the judge and the lawyers without any regard for the substance of the decision. This was merely an application for interim relief until such time as the court reviews the decision of the RAF to stop payment of funds to attorneys directly. As judge Traverso makes clear there is well grounded apprehension on the part of lawyers of irreparable harm would result if the decision of the RAF was implemented.
Interim relief was therefore perfectly in order.
It would be for another court to decide whether the decision itself should be set aside permanently. Mr. Modise’s criticism was therefore uninformed and scurrilous. I assume he is a lawyer and he should have known better.
Come on prof, since when were lawyers ever concerned about human beings? Especially white south african lawyers worried illiterate blacks! Arg please! You are all just protecting your cash cow!
Right on, Stalin. Lawyers! Slimy, scaly creatures, infinitely worse than doctors, estate agents and second-hand car salesmen. When they’re not subverting the law in order to get their scuzzy clients off the hook, they’re stealing people’s money and running off to Australia, never to be heard from again. The law: a quadruped of the horse genus with long ears! And while we’re on the subject, how about justice? Bah! There’s never any justice. Because if there were, Elvis would be alive today and all his impersonators would be dead, right?
Stalin, $Version=1 et Clara – Both your posts amount to hate speech. Not that it matters too much though, J Malema and Z Vavi got away with much worse! But I agree in part with your feelings of repulsion: Many lawyers suck blood like leeches, and that is not constitutional either. As far as the RAF (not the “Royal Air Force”) controversy is concerned, I, to an extent agree that many (if not most) lawyers that specialize in this area of law are dishonest (no wonder the RAF is bankrupt!) and, many of them have had their fingers in their trust accounts when they shouldn’t have. But the whole thing should be regulated; and, the whole industry is in need of re-regulation. If the RAF is emasculated, what will happen to the men (and women) that are injured in road accidents caused as a direct result of the negligence (or even murderous intent) of men (and women) of straw? Modise? Well, he is just another politician, with a political agenda.
Not being a lawyer, I hold no brief for lawyers.
In my opinion, legal representation on a contingency basis is to the benefit of all RAF claimants, indigent or not, and one cannot, rationally, generalise about dishonesty on the part of RAF lawyers.
In my opinion, it’s the no-fault, full-compensation concept underlying the RAF that is wanting – in a number of countries, motorists are legally obliged to carry third party injury injurance.
The result would be far less, often unroadworthy, vehicles on the road and no need for the RAF.
The continued refusal by motorists to accept, and lawmakers to legislate, personal responsibility for third party injury, means that the unsatisfactory RAF system will remain in place.
I dont really know why they dont come up with a lawyerless system. I listened to Modise when he explained the need for legislation and also heard him when he spoke after he lost the case in cape town. I didnt think there was anything political about it, the attack on the judge was merely a sign of disappointment from a man who felt the judge was just protecting their own territory. Like Prof said the real case wasnt dealth with but one can see how it would have gone had it been heard by the same judge. Prof why do the likes of you get peeved and uneasy when the demi-gods i mean judges are criticised? Arent we supposed to express our opinions on the judgements they make and if we feel they are kak say so. Does the constitution say anything about judges exclusivity when it comes to freedom of expression? Or is it just the counterrevolutionist tag they are unhappy about? Then they should just call them racist national party judges and the black ones house nig@@rs
Stalin – you are a sad, angry, obtuse man; as evidenced by, amongst other things, your consistent and blatant racist statements. Why is it necessary for you to comment on “white lawyers” and “illiterate blacks”?
I don’t do any RAF work, but I am a lawyer, and I take great exception to your clichéd and obtuse statement that no lawyers (and especially white ones).are concerned about human beings.
Stalin – I can’t recall the prof ever having a problem with informed criticism of judges. The problem lies with ignorant ranting about judges and their judgements without any basis other than the result wasn’t the one you preferred, or the proceedings involve holding his majesty, the alpha and the omega, JZ, to account.
One wonders whether guys like Mr Modise take their cue from Vavi and so on. Be seen to be outraged by a judge and curry favour with the next ruling elite?
Peter and STDOS spot on.
The Prof made his point clearly. There is nothing wrong with criticising a judgment, but then at least let it be informed and considered criticism. As I understand it, the RAF was effectively overiding the instructions of the very people it claims it wants to assist, by refusing to pay the settlement figure to the attorney they have instructed and authorised to receive the funds.
As far as I am aware Traverso DJP is a no nonsense judge who would certainly not decide a case in a lawyers favour because lawyers interests are at stake. She is scathing in her criticism of inept lawyers who appear before her and notorious as a result. I wonder who the RAF’s counsel was.
The problem with uninformed emotive criticsim is that it is invariably made by irresponsible people who do not actually understand the principles involved and just don’t care whether they undermine the system or not. A ssuch Modise deserves to be criticised for his comments which were just that.
As to a lawyerless claim system – a pipe dream in my opinion. How can the RAF dictate to claimants whether they should be represented or not? Its their constitutional right to have a lawyer. What attorneys have done is ensure that thousands of claims that would otherwise never be lodged are made and when the RAF defends good claims and runs up costs and wastes time, the attorneys are the ones who issue warrants of execution and make life difficult for the likes of the inneficient Mr M.
Let me declare upfront that I AM a lawyer and I DO NOT DO any RAF work but some of the lawyers in the firm do. Reading the comments by the likes of Stalin I just wonder if these people have actually had sight of the judgment. If they did, I would think that they would understand the issues better.
I don’t think there is a lawyer worthy to be called as such who is going to deny that there has been a number of lawyers who have been caught with their hands in places they shouldn’t be. However, you can’t throw the baby with the bath water. The RAF itself, could only come up with a sample of about 50 of these bad lawyers over a period of some 4/5 years (up to 2004, I think – nothing recent).
Having said all of that, Mr Modise in his publis utterances seems to conveniently forget to mention some of the facts to the general public. For example, that the RAF has been known to under-compensate claimants who were not legally represented. Our firm just secured a R650k payment for a man who had been offered R35k by the RAF. Cut out the lawyers, that’s what this man would have received in the end and guess what, Mr Modise would have received an additional performance bonus (for saving RAF money) over and above the R3,5m salary he is currently getting. With that salary his Adv, Cassim still had the audacity to call lawyers greedy, rich bla bla bla…There is not a lot of lawyers I know that make that much in a year!!
It is blatantly obvious that the lawyers are cashing in on the RAF. They know a ‘good thing’ when they see it. They do need to have a retainer to work on, but a signed agreement from their clients that their ‘percentage’ will be retained once a payout from the RAF is made, should suffice. In the meantime, Legal Aid should pay their ongoing fees. My current demise in a four year protracted divorce initiated by my ex husband, is that the lawyers have created their own Feeding Frenzy and are stringing the case out and stripping myself and my child bare in the process. The good news is that we will soon be destitute and then, and only then, will they lose interest.
You know Stalin, I would like to thank you for giving me the courage to write on this blog, you and your friend, Lindelani. No, let me exlain I read this blog with such enthusiasm, it was extremely difficult for me to put up my hand up during our lectures at university and even in the social world, I am extremely carefull to open my mouth if I don’t know for sure that I have something of substance to say.
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
— Abraham Lincoln
Just think if a prof gives you the honour to bless you with a thorough legal opinion and you give him a mouthfull of that hatred you so shamelessly emotionalize everything with. I bet that if you read trough these opinions of these bloggers you probably identify the colour of their skins first and then look at the substance of their opinions.
But that’s where the difference come in: you are just a shy person that doesn’t look at other people at the store, who doesn’t have a social life, but when you blog here you write like you have a pare.
If your regard for whites were even real, I bet you would estrange your own mother with your hatred.
I wanted to write and give my opinion regarding the RAF: During clerkship I noticed that almost all matters referred to the courts are against the RAF, from here to 2012 and if you look at the register, the RAF gets a hell of a lot more attention than what the other citizens have to share, and thats one of the greatest reasons the RAF has to come up with a serious proposal to do their own administration and not rely on the courts to preside over each and every claim.
I am no racist and being racist would serve zilch because racism is about power which i clearly do not have. Sick to death of stalin get a better nick and smell the coffee. What i said was true. A white lawyer concerned about illiterate blacks who cannot their bank accounts can only be taken seriously by a drunken judge from Mars. There is nothing racist about that it is just a reflection of the society i have lived in and my grandparents lived in. No amount of mandela’s ass smooching changed that and mbeki’s arrogance and aloofness poured petrol on this fire. Deny it, call me names but u know it!
I would just like to inform my learned colleague, Stalin, that history didn’t start with the ANC.
Godbless that’s where you have to love the freedom of expression. As for your psychoanalysis of me i wouldnt care less because you really have no idea of me so speculations abound but fry the last brain cell you have with overdrive. I dont take well to personalised attacks as you can see. MaY be you ought to try convince me why i am wrong in my opinion of lawyers especially white lawyers than unleashing a barrage of insults at me. I dont know lindelani so we cannot be friends. As for prof analysis ofcourse i thoroughly enjoy it and sometimes mesmerised by it but it doesnt last for long until a clown like you taints it.
With understandable eagerness certain words were left out in my post to the cranky godbless. Illiterate blacks who cannot MANAGE their bank accounts. But DONT fry your single brain cell. Godbless not every black person is an Anc member! Exhibit A Stalin!
your firs argument nearly had me in tears, big lawyers wearing a suit with lifeless eyes behind the wheel of a Merc then the assotiation with whites.
Some of ift may ring true, but I have serious doubts that the picture you drew is accurate for instance how could you prove, in the light of Mzo’s statement that it’s at the expence of illiterate blacks, again a gereralization of how whites sees blacks.
See how I could still convert with you through all these barriers you put there? Just drop it and talk like someone who wants to be part of the sollution not part of the problem.
Illiterate and people who cannot manage their accounts, i didnt make this up. These were words attributed to the law society. And who do u think they had in mind with those adjectives? I merely called a spade a spade (oopsy unintended pun) godbless chill a bit this is just an intro of me until prof decides to tamper with my freedom of expression by censoring mwa
Thank you for getting back to the issue Mzo. Radio 2000 had a discussion on this last week on Tuesday evening. Mr Modise was unable/unwilling to participate. However, an attorney who had previously worked as a claims assessor for the RAF gave some insight into the appalling practices of the RAF. He confirmed what you have said about under-compensation.
Stalin ur a big racist ! Making judgements about people based purely on the colour of their skin=racist ! I have a black father and white mother before you jump to any conclusions ! Taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable in society is not a characteristic of white people or black people ! If u look thru history u’ll find all groups (race/religion/cultural) who gain power over another, exploit it in one way or another!
I guess i understand where ur anger comes from though, when my dad told me about the shame/confusion he felt when he was a child and saw Whites only benches ect… I became angry, but not with whites though ! I got angry with all people who perpetuate stigma’s which are devisive, people i’m sorry to say like u Stalin ! My mother is a good person, she taught me to take into account the individual and not their race/religion, this is a lesson i hope one day u will learn once u do u will be freed from a lot anger and bitterness! I feel sorry for u !
I am not angry at all Seeps. Good for u u got worse of both worlds. If i am a racist for telling it like is,oh well i am a racist. South africa is divided country whether you like it or not and the majority of blacks still get a raw deal. U got a white father so u cant tell me jerk about the pain i am supposedly feeling neither can your mama cos she married well. So stuff it! I dont really need to know about your family. I dont know why you pseudo-liberals always start by telling us about your black background or how many black friends you got,just make the damn point geez! Truth hurts!
Black father, learn to read you facist !
Duh and that makes a difèrence u coconut!
Stalin – And that last remark proves that you are a RACIST!
Not a racist. I was insulting him. He called me a fascist. Anonymouse you are also a racist. You have no faith in the government because it is black. How is that for narrow thinking! If u criticize Israel then you are anti-Semite
Stalin – By insulting a person of mixed blood through calling him/her a ‘coconut’ (and, by some standards, calling a black person a baboon because he has acted in a stupid baboonish way), one clearly acts in a racist way. By calling a person a facist (which can be black or v white), one does not act in a racist way. By not having faith in the government, because it is nothing but a kleptocracy, it doesn’t matter whether the government is white, black or mixed, any reasonable person, black or white, would have lost his/her faith in that government. To call such a loss of faith (and criticism against governments along rational lines as above), is preposterous, to say the least. To criticize Israel for all the wrongs it has done, similarly does not amount to an act of racism (anti-Semitism). That indeed is narrow thinking. But to justify calling one a coconut just becauiuse he called you a facist will justify a white man calling a black man a ‘kaffir’ for the same reasons. That would clearly be racist, no?
Clearly you do not know what a coconut is. Please dont write the k word when u write to me u white trash
People please. It would be better if everyone took a deep breath and stopped making ad hominem arguments/attacks. Let’s talk about the issues and try and keep the personal insults to a minimum. Personal insults can often seem – like patriotism – to be the last refuge of scoundrels…..
Ok prof. Apologies prof. But u anonymouse ulibambe lingashoni!
I’m also guilty, please except my appologies Stalin & Lindelani
In relation to the RAF debate I would like to ad that an example of the labour matters could serve as goal.
There aren’t many labour disputes in the courtrooms, because of the different bargaining councils provided for each different sector.
If my arguments sounds manic, it’s because I have a lot of hope. I hope the RAF can come up with a realistic proposal in an attempt to shed the court’s load like Eskom is doing and I hope the corruption problem, which effects will only be realized in the future, can be resolved so that we could vote for a competent South African govening party to run this country like a business with a very nice team of employees.
Well, I’m not going to say mea culpa for pointing out what Stalin has done and the falacies of some of his arguments in this regard. Oh, and Stalin, for your information, Iam not scared to see the sun go down, and I sleep best at night, because hollow ideomatic threats like that do not scare me.
“I still hold these views and I am still a bit skeptical of the motives of the lawyers to bring this application. Can’t imagine they would have brought the application if only their client’s interests and not their own financial interests were at stake.”
You are a respected commentator in your field Pierre but I suggest that when you venture out of it, you tread carefully. An in depth analysis of how the Road Accident Fund compensation system operates, and its real problems, would serve the members of the public much better than throw away comments which cast negative aspersions over all the many practitioners who work exceptionally hard on behalf of their clients.
I have for many years acted as a curator ad litem to road accident fund victims (for which I have never been paid more than a nominal sum). Like all professions, there are good and bad attorneys, but I have been generally impressed by the quality of work of victim’s attorneys. Remember the amount of compensation the attorney is entitled to claim, *in the event he is successful and is acting on contingency*, is strictly regulated by law.
Attorneys set up trusts and generally arrange the victim’s affairs in a way that will see his payout is properly managed for his benefit and not that of frequently rapacious relatives (sad but all too often true). The direct payout of large amounts of compensation to people, who may be incapable of managing it for reasons relating to their accident or simply because they have no experience of managing such sums, would not in truth benefit the victims.
There are much more pernicious aspects of the present system which need urgent attention. Almost all of the real problems relate to the failure of the RAF’s bureaucracy. In my view one of the more serious is the practice, sanctioned by legislation, of giving ‘undertakings’. This is an undertaking by the RAF to reimburse the victims for their medical expenses *after* they have incurred their expenses. Over and over again I have seen indigent victims unable to afford the upfront costs of their care, and those who have borrowed from friends and family, unable to recover at all or only after an extended period, the costs they have incurred due to the opaque labyrinthine bureaucratic nightmare that is the RAF. The practical consequence is that many many people give up trying to claim at all.
Meneer,
Soos u waarskynlik bewus is, verwag die Pad Ongelukke Fonds dat Mediese evalueerders of ondersoekers in Ongeskiktheidseise (word nou Impairment genoem), die nodige opleiding moet ondergaan en oor die nodige kwalifikasies daarvoor beskik.
Ek het so pas die 15 uur praktiese werkswinkel onder ABIME deurgaan (sertifikaat aangeheg) en ook die Eksamen vir die kwalifikasie afgelê.
Ek haal aan van die webblad van ABIME:
Certified Independent Medical Examiner SM
CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINER (CIMESM) is a service of the American Board of
Independent Medical Examiners. The service consists of developing and administering tests for
independent medical examiners and benefits professionals who locate qualified medical examiners through
ABIME’s national directory. This service allows case managers, insurance claims adjusters, employers and
other health professionals to rely on the physicians who are listed in ABIME’s National Directory of
Certified Independent Medical Examiners.
As a physician, you may be included in this directory by complying with the following: