Liar, Liar, Lawyer, Lawyer

If there's one thing I can't stand its a hypocrite. Especially one that bills his client at R1,000 per hour, without telling them. Its devious and dishonest. What makes it worse is that the message I asked him to pass on to his client was ignored, even though the billable time was not. That's just plain unethical, not to mention rude. Frankly, I was expecting it, but at the same time it came as a shock.
What gets me even more is that the lawyer in question has never been on the receiving end of a trial, unless you count the academic exercises they do at law school. Even then, he would have acted on behalf of a "client". He has never had the trauma of being personally accused of all kinds of bad things, and being told to pay up or go to court. On the other hand, I have been told to pay R 461,000 by a different lawyer who couldn't add, and incorrectly totaled up the amounts to a mere R 1,525,000 instead. This arrogant bastard lawyer never apologized, nor corrected his mistake. He just didn't care, because most greedy lawyers are too busy handling too many cases, and not paying proper attention to any of them. He clearly didn't think he owed me any kind of explanation for his incompetence.
How can lawyers get away with that kind of "mistake"? It's easy: they lie. They lie on behalf of the client, and when they are in the court room the lawyers are not under oath, only the witnesses. So they can lie on behalf of the client and get away with it. The sad thing is that they lie to their own clients, and bill them for it.
I am following a matter in the Magistrates Court. The Plaintiff has filed two summonses, each suing for money, but each providing different amounts of money. The Plaintiff herself hasn't signed either document, but instead they have been issued by two different sets of law firms. So who is lying? The Plaintiff, or the law firm(s)? Has the Plaintiff even seen the details of the summons? Who knows? What I do know is that the Defendants have received both versions, and made the initial mistake of hiring a lawyer to defend them. He did such a bad job that they eventually fired him, but only after having to pay him over R3,000. Now they are defending themselves.
The matter has dragged on for 18 months or so, and they still are waiting for their opportunity to sort out the matter and make it go away. The plaintiff won't listen to reason, and her lawyer will listen to anyone who will talk to him, provided he can bill the client for the privilege. Of course he doesn't care what I said to him, and didn't pass it on to his client. Arrogance costs R1000 per hour. So does incompetence.
While I am friends with several lawyers, and know them to be honest and ethical, the same can't be said for their colleagues. So my default opinion is that all lawyers are overloaded with work, can't pay any of their cases the attention that their clients deserve, and are either unethical or dishonest or both.
In my first case in 1986, I was represented by Howard Varney (Attorney) and Chris Nicholson (Advocate) from the Legal Resources Centre in Durban. It was a review case in the Free State Provincial High Court, and while I didn't win on all points, I gained a sufficient ruling to prevent the SADF from arresting me or forcing me to be a conscript. Both men have gone on to have distinguished careers. I couldn't pay for this representation, but had to do all the paperwork, affidavits and the like. They supervised and made sure that only the important points were argued, and the minor ones ignored. I am most grateful for their time and expertise, and I learnt a lot.
My second case was a shot out of the blue a few years ago. I was sued for defamation, and nearly landed up having to defend myself in the Gauteng High Court. I chose not to have a lawyer, and it was only when I could talk to the Plaintiff without their lawyer screwing things up that we managed to settle the issue, to the satisfaction and benefit of both parties. He was the guy who couldn't add. That stressful case lasted for about 8 weeks, during which time I lost a lot of sleep and around 10kg.
Being involved in a lawsuit is like playing chess by postcard. A lot of nothing happens, except that as the defendant you end up doing a lot of worrying. In the fist case I worried about whether I could survive 6 years in jail. In the second case I worried about how I would ever be able to pay R 461,000 plus my bond, plus their legal fees. I just hoped it would never come to that. In both cases I was fortunate.
It is now my firm belief that I will rather handle my own legal matters, and call on lawyers for advice, but not representation.

Copyright Criminals

This promises to be an interesting documentary, if the lawyers don't manage to ban it first.

Don't Copy That Floppy!

In 1992 they told us that copying floppies would lead to the end of the computer age. It was BS then and it's BS now. I'm happy to pay for good software and to keep my programs legal, but don't lie to me about why I should do so.

Now they are trying the same stunt again, but please explain to me how copying free software hurts the industry? I make some of my best programs available for free, and I'm busier than ever. Companies like "News Corporation" (did you see their ad in the video?) are complaining about losing money by having free web sites. Why then do they even bother with web sites if they are so unprofitable? If they can't sell ads on their web sites then their content must really suck.
It's ironic that these videos are available online for free. Shouldn't they be charging me to watch it? They could go out of business!

Fast Food, Slow Brain: how to alienate your customers with a simple lawyers letter

On the weekend I got an interesting email. The guy who wrote it was clearly terrified, which makes my blood boil. I have no way of knowing whether anything written is true, because all the specifics that would allow for verification are missing, as you will see:

I came across your story whilst searching for info about a consumers rights to blog their opinions and the implications of defamatory High Court Action.
I will not mention the companies name suffice to say the person who wants to take legal action against me for defamation is a franchisee of a large fast food corporate in South Africa.
I waxed lyrical on hellopeter.com and also sent copies of this to the franchise head offices and to the mall contacts from which the franchise operates.

Some facts

The corporate is one of the largest in South Africa in that industry.
I have been in touch (telephonically and electronically) with the Corporate executives - they have apologized for the service I got from the franchise branch and I have kept all emails as a record.
I considered this matter closed until the franchise branch owner (franchisee) sent me a letter via his lawyers demanding I retract my statements which they claim have damaged reputation & business.
They threaten that all costs will be for my account.
They threaten High Court Application against me by next Friday.

My take:

I know I am in the right in this issue.
My problem is that I have no idea of what the costs are for a High Court action let alone hiring a lawyer to defend me.
I was even thinking that if this got so far that I would defend myself but my lawyer skills go as far as Boston Legal or LA Law tv show episode. I'm sure I could pull of a few jokes in court but I dont think that would win me anything.
I am not by any means rich. I was thinking of using my bonus (which i get next month) and if things really get bad selling my car.
The "F$%* You" attitude in me tells me not to back down whilst the scared part (I admit its there) tells me to send a two liner to the lawyers retracting my statements.
The similarity in our situations is BIG CORPORATE vs little man.
Some advice from your experience would help

I'm not sure how much of my experience will help in this specific case, but it ocurred to me that the franchisee is behaving like an idiot. First of all, any restaurant owner who sues his customers for complaining deserves to lose his franchise and all his money. Restaurant reputations are won or lost on good service, and any business owner who doesn't listen to his customer complaints is a loser.
I sincerely hope that the Head Office guys get hold of the franchisee and fire him or take away his franchise for potentially screwing up their brand reputation.
If the lawyer who sent the letter ever reads this, I think he is being unprofessional and extremely stupid. He should have advised his client against such an action, and if pressed he should have refused, if only to save his reputation. The consumer site HelloPeter.com has systems and methods in place for dealing with abuse of unreasonable complaints, and if this complaint fell outside that category, and assuming it was truthful, I suggest that the lawyer goes back to law school and apologises to his lecturers.
Launching a High Court action is tactically suicidal, because of the associated publicity and public interest. You have to sue for more that R100,000 for the High Court to be interested, and you have to prove actual losses in order to claim damages. How do you prove losses from lack of sales based on a complaint on HelloPeter? You can't. Case dismissed. Lawyer looks like a bumbling idiot, client ends up paying costs on both sides. Client loses a good reputation, and gains a new one: Mampara of the Month.
There is a Facebook Support Group for bloggers who get sued in cases like this.

Zuma vs Zapiro

January 16 2009




September 8 2008




September 12 2008

Prominent Johanesburg Lawyer Reads My Blog

I was somewhat flattered to receive an email from prominent lawyer and respected member of the community, Michael de Broglio. He wasn't pleased with the entry I made earlier in the year, when he phoned me to ask me who he was. I recall him yelling, "Do you know who I am?" but I wasn't able to help him.
Unfortunately Michael decided that my entry constuted "defamation" rather than "embarassment". He wrote:

I have come across a blog of yours, dated 25 April 2006, in which you not only defame me, but also utilize an image of me off my own website!
Please would you be so kind as to remove the entire blog within 48 hours failing which I shall have no option but to pursue a substantial legal action against you. I do trust this will not be necessary and you will attend to the immediate removal of the defamatory blog and any reference to me on your blog, as well as my image.
All my rights remain strictly reserved.
Thank you
Michael de Broglio

Michael owns several racehorses and is a prominent Johannesburg lawyer and National Director of the Racing Association and chairs the Marketing Committee. He is also the Chairperson of the Gauteng Law Council, and has two blogs, one at the Gauteng Law Council, and one at the Johannesburg Attorneys Association.
Obviously someone this important would want to protect his fine reputation, but one wonders whether he is going too far by demanding I close down the entire "defammatory blog" because of a single entry. Nonetheless I have removed the entry to which he referred, to save him the effort of having to "pursue a substantial legal action".