Lessons Learned

A few days after I've started this "one man" campaign, I've learned a some lessons. But before I get to that I would like to thank everybody who responded with emails, postings to this blog, SMS, telephone calls and even Skype calls. Most expressed support, others tried to explain a contrary view and a small percentage was downright rude. So, what did I learn... Firstly, I've learned that RAF and property transfer work are the only areas of law firm work where the arguments in support of touting still made any sense. Those attorneys who buy work, are the main reason the touting rules are still enforced. These attorneys should be ashamed! I've also learned that most Law Societies would not enforce their current touting rules. If so, why have them at all? I've learned that some attorneys believe that the profession had (and should have) the power to create, enforce or scrap rules that govern the profession. Some of these attorneys advised me to resolve my concerns within the current structures e.g. take a list of resolutions to the next annual meeting of the Law Society and canvass support. They referred to this as the "democratic process". Now I've got some problems with the "democratic process". Firstly, I don't think the Law Societies represent the majority of members. I also do not believe that the current members should have the right to make rules for the profession - members will (and do) make rules to protect themselves and have little concern for clients, newcomers or competitors. I've also learned that this kind of protest is new to South Africa. A majority of commentators either admired my guts or expressed concerns that I will be victimised by the Law Societies. Almost all those who expressed support preferred to do so anonymously. Who are they afraid off? So much for a democratic process of people and law firms are afraid to express their concerns. Has our profession really spiralled this low? These are some of the emails I received: "I could not have said it better. Because we refuse to pay backhands to estate agents, very few transfers are referred to our firm. We are prevented from effectively advertising or offering discounts to the clients who deserve it! and thus we are struggling to grow our conveyancing department. Despite the fact that I refuse to pay bribes, I couldn't afford it. I can however afford to discount my fees as we are a smaller firm with lower overheads, but if I do that I am touting! As you would say, Its not right" "Well done Reinhardt! I know you are going to get a lot of flack from the "hoarders of wealth". If truth be told, a lot of us are for transformation. Happiness is not always about money & money does not necessarily rock everybody's world. Count me in." "I have just read your letter and fully support the contents thereof. To add to your list of archaic rules, take the following example: as General Counsel to one of major multinational companies in South Africa and an admitted attorney, I may not approach any advocate directly to, for instance, ask for a specialist opinion. I have to instruct a "practising" attorney first, which clearly increases legal costs significantly. Why? Apparently because advocates may not (do not want to?) take direct instructions from the "general public". The fact that I am also an admitted attorney does not seem to matter in this particular case. The worst possible argument I have heard to defend this rule is that advocates do not want to bear the burden of collecting fees, but want the comfort of an attorney "guaranteeing" their fees. Just one more archaic rule that serves no purpose other than protect the interests of a select few." "Good luck with your campaign. I support it wholeheartedly."