LATEST NEWS

Hereto below the latest letter from the Court appointed curator to our Practice dated the 4th June 2019, confirming that there are no pending claims submitted to the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund, nor any claims previously paid by them.

Given that Law Society’s governing 70% of all South Africa’s practicing attorneys permitted, promoted and encouraged their members to enter into common law percentage contingency fee agreements with their clients, one fails to understand how any person could seriously suggest that an attorney who entered into such agreements with clients, would have done so with fraudulent intent.

If that were to be the case tens of thousands of attorneys who would have entered into millions of such agreements with their clients from the time the Law Society’s issued such rulings – in June 2002 until April 2013, would have to be accused of doing so with fraudulent intent – surely an absurd and illogical proposition.

Similarly given that the Law Society of the Northern Provinces – at the time the largest Law Society in South Africa, and governing more than 70% of all South Africa’s attorneys specifically advised its 16 000 members, to enter into alternative fall back fee agreements given the novelty/newness of common law percentage contingency fee agreements, and the possibilities of a client challenging the validity of such an agreement; it would be equally absurd and illogical for any person, let alone a lawyer to suggest that any attorney who followed the LSNP’s advice and did so, was guilty of fraud in a client.

Click here to view letter sent by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces to the Deputy Judge President van der Merwe on the 12th October 2011 informing the judge that “Following the judgment given in the matter of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc./National Potato Co-operative Ltd.,by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the lack of certainty as to whether a Court would uphold common law contingency fee agreements as a result thereof, we have cautioned out members to provide for alternative fee agreements with clients in the event that the common law agreement was disputed or ruled invalid by a Court”.

Latest letter from Johan van Staden re no claims dated 4 June 2019 page 001

Despite false and malicious allegations by Discovery proxy Anthony Millar and NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku in the South African Jewish Report, and other publications that we had stolen “hundreds of millions of rands”, and  “over a billion rand”, from Practice clients, not a single one of the thousands of former clients of the Practice Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. have made any claims against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund – a fund which reimburses clients moneys misappropriated from them by their attorney.

The Curator appointed by the court to our Practice after we were forced to flee South Africa for fear of our lives consequent upon threats of serious bodily harm or worse, made by Discovery proxies on the 15th March 2016; reported as early as November 2016 and subsequently thereafter, and again on the 4th June 2019, that not a single claim of misappropriation had been made by anyone of the Practice clients against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund.

It is hoped that with the appointment of new leadership, the endemic corruption within sectors of the Hawks and the NPA will come to an end, and that the new leadership will carefully consider the true facts of the Discovery/Edward Nathan's George van Niekerks fabrications, and see them for the lies they are.Further that it will be understood that the entire sequence of events leading up to the NPA investigation, at the instance of Discovery's attorney Mr George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town, did not arise out of any wrongdoing, but exclusively out of a vendetta being conducted against us by Mr van Niekerk as attorney for Discovery Health, and as revenge by Discovery for us exposing its decades of institutionalised defrauding of its vulnerable members, who had sustained injury in accidents, to the tune of hundreds of millions of rands annually.

Discovery's Jeff Katz openly and repeatedly threatened “no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all, we have unlimited money to do so”.

See Section headlined below: Fiction: That Ronald Bobroff and Darren Bobroff, together with his wife and two little boys left South Africa to avoid prosecution, below, to view copies of affidavits and correspondence confirming Katz’s threats and which includes an email from Advocate Nazeer Cassim SC recording Katz's making such a threat to him as well.

 

 

FICTION

Allegations of misappropriation of Practice clients trust funds

FACT

Not a cent of trust money belonging to clients was misappropriated/stolen from any Practice clients, and no clients have lodged any misappropriation claims against the Attorneys Fidellity Fund. This has repeatedly been confirmed by the Court appointed Curator to the Practice. His latest confirmation dated 4 June 2019 ,as also his confirmation dated 28 August 2018 appears below.

Latest letter from Johan van Staden re no claims dated 4 June 2019 1

 

Annexure 21 Letter from Court appointed curator Johan van Staden dated 28 August 2018 page 001 1

 FICTION

That RBP's fee agreements whereby complicated and expensive personal injury and medical negligence claims were somehow improper or unethical, and that this Law firm was the only one using such agreements.

FACT

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, The Free State Lawyers Association, The Black Lawyers Association and the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, were all of the opinion that such agreements were in the public interest, lawful and ethical, and for almost twelve years from 2002 up to and including 2013, almost 80% of all practicing attorneys in South Africa were permitted and encouraged to utilise such agreements.

Below see the ruling made by the Law Society with regards to Common Law Contigency Fee Agreements, and the further confirmaton of the ruling made.

1. The 1st Ruling by the Law Society - August 2002

Annexure 34 Law Societys 1st ruling page 001

 2. The Confirmation of the ruling by the Law Society - October 2003

 

Annexure RBA4 Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements Further confirmation of ruling by LSNP page 001

2. Extract from an opinion expressed by Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcom Wallis in 2010 supporting such agreements, and critical of attorneys fees based on time.

Malcom Wallis page 001

 

3. Letter from the Law Society addressed to Deputy Judge President van der Merwe of the Pretoria High Court dated 12 October 2011 informing the judge that it supported such agreements, that it had permitted and encouraged its members to utilise such agreements since 2002, that it had not laid down any minimum or maximum percentage fee which its members could charge their clients, and that percentage fees in excess of 25% were entirely permissable.

Annexure RBA12 Letter from Law Society to the the Deputy Judge President page 001

 Annexure RBA12 Letter from Law Society to the the Deputy Judge President page 002

4. Law Society President janse van Rensburg, in opposition to Millar's attack on such agreements (whilst he hypocritically has and continues to use common law contingency fee agreements), signed a 49 page affidavit, prepared by the Law Society attorney Andre Bloem of Rooth and Wessels Pretoria, and in which the Law Society vigorously defended its decade of permitting and encouraging its 16 000 members to uitlise such agreements.

The entire affidavit may be viewed by clicking here to read.

FICTION

That the Practices requirement that clients who wished to take advantage of obtaining legal representation by the Practice on a no win no fee basis, and whereby the firm carried the entire risk and cost of what was often years of High Court litigation and disbursements running into hundreds of thousands of rands; sign alternative fee agreements, was improper.

FACT

As will be noted in paragraph 5 of the Law Society letter to the Deputy Judge President of the High Court dated 12 October 2011, the Law Society itself had sent out written advisories to its 16 000 members.

No RBP clients were forced to sign any agreements whatsoever, unlike Discovery puppet attorney Anthony Millar whose poor and semi literate clients were touted from their Natalspruit hospital beds (see www.toutingattorneys.co.za), all RBP clients came to the firm by way of recommendation from family, friends or professionals, were free to decline signing any agreements, or of terminating their instructions to the firm at any time.

RBP Inc. in common with the Law Society's tens of thousands of other members offered their clients an opportunity of entering into alternative fee agreements and for the very reasons referred to by the Law Society in its letter to the the Deputy Judge President, and any critisism of this is malicious and without merit.

 

FICTION

That Ronald and Darren Bobroff have been found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Law Society.

FACT

The Law Society has confirmed in writing on the 1st February 2013, and again recently, that never since the Practice was established in 1975, were any of its directors - Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff and Stephen Bezuidenhout been found guilty by any Disciplinary committee of the Law Society of any unprofessional conduct.

 Annexure 2 Certificate of 40 year unblemished record issued to RBP Inc. by the Law Society page 001

 Doc2 page 001

FICTION

That Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff, his wife Lisa together with their two little boys left South Africa to avoid prosecution.

FACT

As at March 2016 to date, there has never been any prosecution of Ronald, Darren or Lisa(who never had anything to do with the Practice).

This despite wild and hysterical allegations made by a spokesperson for South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority, and unsurprisingly Discovery's puppet touting attorney Anthony Millar, by faithfully reporting on the captive publications and primarily in the Discovery controlled South African Jewish Report by Ant Katz, a relation to Discovery's Jeff Katz.

The only reason Ronald, Darren and Lisa left was on account of terrifying and credible threats made to Ronald on the 15th March 2016 that Discovery's agents would:

- At any moment have Darren's wife Lisa arrested and gang raped in prison by thugs hired for such purpose.

- That Ronald and Darren would be arrested at any moment and whilst in prison subjected to serious assault or murder.

Against the background of Discovery's Jeff Katz having continuouly threatened Darren, Ronald their partner Stephen Bezuidenhout, that he/Discovery would:

"no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all", "we have unlimited money with which to do do".

Katz accosted Darren, his wife and two little boys at Melrose Arch shopping centre marched up to their table and in a loud voice such that everyone in the restaurant could hear shouted “The Hawks (South Africa's specialised criminal investigation unit)are onto you, they will be arresting you soon”.

Please see below relevant extracts of the letter of complaint regarding Katz addressed to the Law Society.

Letter of complaint page 001

 

Extracts of affidavit of  RBP Director S Bezuidenhout relating to the threat made to him.

Affidavit S Bez page 001

Email from Advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C to Ronald Bobroff regarding threat.

Annexure 5 Nazeer Cassim Email re threat page 001

 

Anonymous emails having being received by Darren during February 2016, and obviously eminating from a source privy to highly confidential material to the effect that Ronald and Darren would be arrested and bail would be opposed by the National Prosecuting Authority.

Annexure 15 Annonymous Emailed threats page 001

Annexure 19 Anonymous emailed threats received page 001

 

Below see letter issued by attorney David Bayliss confirming that "at no stage have we been furnished with any charge sheet alleging/detailing criminal conduct on the part of either Ronald and Darren Bobroff".

Annexure 38 Letter from David Bayliss to Ohad Lior 14.05.18 page 001

 

 

FICTION

If Ronald and Darren are innocent of any criminal conduct,why have they not returned to South Africa to "face the music"?

FACT

Darren, Lisa and Ronald had been advised and had intended to only absent themselves from South Africa for a few days, whilst the source of the threat above was identified and neutralised.

For that reason their return flights were booked for them to arrive back in South Africa,on 23rd March 2016.

See a copy of the air tickets below:

Annexure 16 RB Plane ticket page 001

Annexure 17 Darren plane ticket page 001

 

However after Ronalds wife Elaine was arrested on trumped up charges on the night of the 22nd March 2016, whilst she, her daughters and sons in law were meeting with Advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C at his home, by a very senior member of the Hawks, the circumstances changed immediately.

The admission by a Lt. Colonel member of the Hawks who had arrested Elaine, that effectively the only reason that he had arrested her was due to a telephonic instruction by Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town.

It immediately became clear that Discovery's Jeff Katz's threats as to the power and influence of Discovery and its attorneys Edward Nathan were not idol ones.

The endemic and widespread corruption infesting South Africa's criminal justice system from top to bottom is a matter of public record, and has extended from successive heads of the Hawks and the NPA downwards to prosecutors, police officers and even the Chief Magistrate of Pretoria.

The evidence in this regard was presented day after day, and week after week before the Zondo judicial commission of enquiry, and may be easily accessed on the internet.

Renowned forensic investigator Mr Paul O' Sullivan was engaged by the Practice to investigate ongoing thefts of material from it, and successfully obtained a full confession from the culprit, Ms. Cora van der Merwe. (currently conducting business as Legally Accurate (PTY) Limited).

Fourteen months after van der Merwe had willingly accompanied Mr. O'Sullivan and his assistant on the way to his offices, she laid charges of kidnapping against Mr. O'Sullivan.

There is no doubt in the minds of those who were aware of Discoverys agenda, which happened to coincide with that of the NPA and the Hawks concerning Mr. O'Sullivan, that he was charged and persecuted for some two years at great financial and reputational cost.

After two years of torment Mr. O'Sullivan and his assistant were acquitted of all van der Merwes charges, The Magistrate described van der Merwe as “an evasive liar, who kept changing her story", and her thefts for Discovery media assassin Beamish as “unlawful and malicious”. 

Click here to read the judgment

Which fairminded person, when confronted with these facts and the clear demonstration of the power and influence which Discovery and its attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town have been able to wield, and as will be noted below even extended to the hijacking in November 2015 of the council of the Law Society; would condem us of being fearful to return to South Africa until and unless the endemic corruption has been rooted out, and Discovery and its attorneys' improper use of their power and influence has been exposed and stopped.

 

Facts image

Bob2

 

 DISCOVERYS MALICIOUS VENDETTA

Consequent upon our exposure of Discovery's decades of institutionlised defrauding and deception of its members, Discovery's Jeffrey Katz who personally derived enormous financial benefit by virtue of his, and under his instructions his departmental staffs bullying and harassment of seriously injured road accident victims, commences a malicious vendetta involving fraud, bribery and corruption, as revenge and in respect of which Katz threatens that "no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all".

 

 This site contains factual and substantiated proof how Discovery Health administrators (PTY) Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company Discovery Limited),via its in house debt collector Jeffrey Katz has waged a seven-year long vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff,and the Practice of RBP Inc., as revenge against them, because in the course of their defending Practice clients Mark and Jody Bellon, they unwittingly exposed Discovery's decades of institutionalised defrauding and abuse of its members who sustained injuries on road accidents or other trauma related events.

 

You will read how Katz made specific threats on a number of occasions to RBP director Stephen Bezuidenhout, to RBP's senior advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C during the hearing of a matter, which Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town stated that it did not involve Discovery directly or indirectly, (so why was Discovery's Katz there and also present at every matter involving RBP former client Mr Graham and his wife, and all matters against RBP where Katz's proxy Anthony Millar attacked RBP's law society compliant contingency fee agreements?) Katz repeated the same threat he had made to Bezuidenhout and Advocate Cassim i.e. that "We (Discovery) will destroy you all, no matter what it takes and no matter what it costs", to Ronald and Darren Bobroff on a number of occasions.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW  DARREN BOBROFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST KATZ IN RESPECT OF HIS THREATS, SUBMITTED TO THE LAW SOCIETY.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE AFFIDAVIT DEPOSED TO BY STEPHEN BEZUIDENHOUT IN RESPECT OF KATZ'S THREAT TO DESTROY US

CLICK HERE TO READ HOW DISCOVERY'S KATZ THREATENED ANOTHER ATTORNEY WITH THE SAME VENDETTA AS THAT CONDUCTED AGAINST RBP, UNLESS SHE FORSAKES DEFENDING HER CLIENT AGAINST DISCOVERY'S BULLYING

CLICK HERE TO READ VARIOUS RBP CLIENT AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLAINT  THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE LAW SOCIETY AGAINST KATZ

 CLICK HERE TO READ THE AFFIDAVIT EXPOSING HOW DISCOVERY WAS BEHIND MALICIOUS SUSPENSION APPLICATION 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE EMAIL BY ADVOCATE NAZEER CASSIM SC, IN WHICH HE DESCRIBES HOW KATZ CONVEYED TO HIM THE SAME THREAT KATZ HAD MADE TO RBP DIRECTORS STEPHEN BEZUIDENHOUT AND DARREN BOBROFF

You will also read how Discovery, via its attorneys Edward Nathan effectively hijacked the Law Society Council, by packing it with Discovery attorneys and others closely connected to Discovery or ENS, and how it catapulted a shady ambulance chaser, Anthony Millar of Norman Berger and Partners, whose practice comprises largely of poor black road accident victims who are touted from Natalspruit Hospital; to the office of "president" of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces.

YouTube interviews with a few of Millar's touted clients: (affidavits have been taken from dozens of his clients by independent professional investigators and every client describes how he or she was touted in much the same way by Millar's tout Jabu ,as is described in the YouTube interviews below.

 

Unsurprisingly the Law Society has simply ignored dozens of complaints in this regard against Norman Berger and Anthony Millar, or simply swept the complaints under the carpet at secret meetings behind closed doors from which the Attorney and Advocate representing Berger and Millar's touted victims were excluded. To further compound its improper conduct the Law Society flatly refused to provide Millar's victims or their attorney with a copy of the recording, made at the secret meeting or the reasons why these serious touting complaints, of which normally only one proven touting of a client is sufficient to be struck off the roll; were simply ignored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j14DOxIKQzw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdECA6NbpgE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXVFyKcKJ3M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6Oj-HtUh18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB3zjxBOn68

Millar has never previously served on any committee of the organized profession, and his rigged installation as "president' of the Law Society by Discovery / ENS, is a perversion of the integrity that the Law Society has always stood for, and irreparably taints it. Read the powerful and truthful affidavits filed by the Law Society's former president, Mr Busani Mabunda in 2012 and 2013, in which he fearlessly exposes Discovery and its attorney George Van Niekerk of ENS, as being behind the cynical use of a former RBP client to pursue its vendetta against Ronald, Darren and RBP.  He accuses van Niekerk and RBP former client Mr Graham and his wife of perjury, and in addition van Niekerk of appalling unprofessional conduct. 

CLICK HERE TO READ A SELECTION OF QUOTATIONS FROM PRESIDENT MABUNDA'S AFFIDAVITS

CLICK HERE TO READ PRESIDENT MABUNDA'S AFFIDAVIT - PART 1

CLICK HERE TO READ PRESIDENT MABUNDA'S AFFIDAVIT - PART 2

Below you will read how 2014/5 Law Society President Strike Madiba, again expressly fingers Discovery on 30 July 2015, in an affidavit filed by him in court, of being behind the second round of litigation brought by it in the name of the same former RBP client previously used as a puppet against RBP Inc., Ronald and Darren, after its earlier application was effectively dismissed by the court. 

 

 CLICK HERE TO READ PRESIDENT MADIBA'S JULY 2015 AFFIDAVIT FINGERING DISCOVERY 

 

THE HIJACKING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES BY DISCOVERYS ATTORNEYS EDWARD NATHAN 

You will read how Millar, with the support of ENS's huge army of lawyers, step by step paved the way for his improper installation as "president" of the Law Society, and as confidently predicted by Discovery's Jeffrey Katz when he threatened Darren Bobroff on the 16th June 2015, and referred to above in Darren Bobroffs' complaint against Katz to the Law Society.

 

Step 1:

Was to remove the Law Society rule which prohibits anyone canvassing support for an attorney to be elected to the council of the Law Society.  Rule 43 was specifically intended to ensure that candidates for election to the Law Society council should be attorneys of worth, respected by their colleagues, who had served for lengthy periods of time on committees of the Law Society, leaders in their communities and were fit and proper to serve as members of the Council.

 

As Millar was none of the aforesaid, the only way to get him onto the council was if Discovery's attorneys, primarily ENS but also other large corporate law firms, either the recipients of work from Discovery, or closely connected to ENS would use their collective hundreds of partners and professional staff to lobby for, and to vote for Millar. Therefore, this rule was abolished by virtue of Millar's motion at the Law Society 2014 annual general meeting, supported by Discovery's attorneys and proxies.

 

ATTEMPT BY MR ANTHONY MILLAR TO HAVE HIMSELF ELECTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LSNP - CLICK HERE TO  READ

 MILLAR PREPARES TO HAVE ENS, DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEYS ELECT HIM TO LAW SOCIETY COUNCIL - EXTRACT  FROM THE EDITED MINUTES - CLICK  HERE TO READ

 DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEY MICHAEL KATZ OF EDWARD NATHAN, AND HIS PARTNERS HIJACK THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY FOR THE BENEFIT OF DISCOVERY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE FIRMS BIGGEST CLIENTS - CLICK HERE TO READ THE SORDID MANNER IN WHICH THIS WAS ACHIEVED

Step 2:

Was for Millar to call for a special meeting of members of the Law Society seeking to force an "election" of members of the council.  You will have read above and you will have noted Millar's letter demanding such a meeting, his attached resolution calling for an "election", and the requisition in terms of the Law Society's rule 16 which requires signature by at least 100 of its members.

You will note that the requisition is ONLY signed by Discovery's Jeff Katz and assistant Krawitz, Millar, Berger and their two assistants and EVERY OTHER SIGNATURE IS EXCLUSIVELY THAT OF DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEYS - THE DIRECTORS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF EDWARD NATHAN.  This has to be the most astonishingly, brazen and arrogant manipulation of the Law Society in its entire history.

 

Discovery's Katz (in the pink shirt) plotting with his accomplice Millar (portly man in the white shirt).

katz  katz1 

 

Step 3:

Unsurprisingly the meeting called for was packed with Discovery proxies and the resolution called for was carried forcing an "election" for the council of the Law Society.

Step 4:

Was for Discovery via the various law firms it floods with work, to put up candidates for "election" to the council, which included directors of these firms, as also Discovery panel attorneys. Again by sheer weight of numbers, Discovery was able to ensure that its chosen candidates would be elected to the council.

Step 5:

Was to have Millar leap-frogged from his Louis Botha office obscurity, to the office of president of the council! There are some 18 000 attorneys governed by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces. A tiny proportion of these are ever elected, after years of decades in practice to the council of the Law Society, and in its 125-year existence the council has only had approximately 125 presidents or less. A councillor who may have any ambition of being elected as President of the Council is required to serve diligently on the council for many years, display a capacity for the enormous work load, and the proper and ethical service the office of President involves, serve and chair numerous important committees of the Law Society for many years.

 

Only then, do a minuscule number of councillors be held in such high esteem by their fellow councillors and the profession as a whole, to become eligible for election by fellow councillors as president of the council.  Millar fails to qualify on any single one of these criteria, and probably the only previous occasions in which he had set foot in the Law Society building in Pretoria would have been to face complaints against him by clients.

 In a shocking and farcical perversion of everything the Law Society has always stood for, Millar was "elected" by way of a rigged process whereby Discovery/ENS stooges voted for him.  Millar has faithfully served his masters since then together with his fellow Discovery proxies, in causing the council to do a 360 degree about face departing from the ethical and honest stance taken by the former council vigorously opposing all the Discovery funded applications against it, RBP Inc., and Ronald and Darren Bobroff.

 

Whereas it had previously, staunchly and honestly stood for principle in resisting and exposing Discovery and its attorney’s relentless efforts to manipulate the Law Society to serve its agenda; it now effectively parroted the line taken by Discovery and ENS's George Van Niekerk in attacking Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.

 

THE HIJACKED DISCOVERY/ENS LAW SOCIETY COUNCIL, ATTEMPTS TO SANITIZE, BUT AS THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE, THEN DISCARDS AN EXPLOSIVE AFFIDAVIT EXPOSING THE COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION BETWEEN DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEY GEORGE VAN NIEKERK OF ENS CAPE TOWN, DISCOVERY PROXY ANTHONY MILLAR AND DISCOVERY MEDIA ASSASSIN TONY BEAMISH, IN THEIR COMMON OBJECTIVE OF SERVING DISCOVERY'S AGENDA BY WAY OF BRIBERY, CORRUPTION AND FAKE NEWS,TO DESTROY RBP INC. AND RONALD AND DARREN BOBROFF

The 274-page May 2015 powerful affidavit, prepared by the Law Society's attorney, Mr Andre Bloem on instructions from the Law Society and its then president Mr Solomon Strike Madiba, throughout the document, but specifically in paragraph 14 thereof exposes the collusion between Millar, Discovery's attorney George Van Niekerk of ENS, and Discovery Medial Lackey reporter Anthony Kilroy Beamish, in pursuing the vendetta against Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.

 

The hijacked Discovery/Law Society Council attempts to sanitize and then discards the explosive affidavit prepared by Law Society Attorney Mr.A Bloem of Rooth and Wessels, which graphically exposed how Discovery's Katz, its attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town, its proxy attorney Anthony Millar and Media Lackey Beamish were behind the vendetta and accompanying media campaign against Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff and Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc. 

PRESIDENT MADIBA'S AFFIDAVIT FINGERING DISCOVERY DATED 30 JULY 2015 - CLICK HERE TO READ

AFFIDAVIT PREPARED BY LAW SOCIETY ATTORNEY MR.ANDRE BLOEM, FOR PRESIDENT SOLOMIN STRIKE MADIBA - CLICK HERE TO READ

PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENT DETAILING DISCOVERY'S INVOLVEMENT - CLICK HERE TO READ

PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENT DETAILING VAN NIEKERKS CONDUCT AND INVOLVEMENT - CLICK HERE TO READ

PARAGRAPH 14 OF THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENT EXPOSING THE COLLUSION BETWEEN DISCOVERY PROXY ANTHONY MILLAR, AND ITS MEDIA LACKEY BEAMISH - CLICK HERE TO READ

ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH 14 BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE AFFIDAVIT - CLICK HERE TO READ

SANITIZED PARAGRAPH 14 WHICH REPLACED THE ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH 14 - CLICK HERE TO READ

After the farcical “election" results became known on or about 23 October 2015, and given that Millar was now a "councillor”, the original paragraph 14 was suddenly removed from that affidavit, and as you will note from the replacement paragraph 14, no reference is made to Millar at all.

 

That obviously was not enough to satisfy Discovery proxies on the council, and the entire truthful and courageous 274-page affidavit was discarded and substituted, by a venomous affidavit tailor made to further Discovery's interests.

Despite paying lip service to the principles of fairness and natural justice, that affidavit had attached to it, a biased and inaccurate report by a junior accountant employed full time by the Law Society, an affidavit by a mentally unstable former RBP employee who had been recruited by Beamish, and an affidavit by a ten times convicted fraudster and jailbird bookkeeper employed by RBP Inc., and bribed by Discovery via Millar to set up RBP for a SARS audit aimed at having the Practice shut down.

 

The obvious intention was to negatively and improperly influence the minds of any judges reading same against RBP, Ronald and Darren.  Despite that contrived affidavit stating that RBP and its directors would be given an opportunity to rebut the allegations in the annexed documents at a Law Society disciplinary hearing, where the authors of those documents would face cross examination by RBP legal representatives; that of course never took place.

 

Instead the Law Society, now under the powerful influence of Discovery proxies on its council, made common cause with it, and with Millar at the helm trumpeting on television and elsewhere in the furtherance of his and Discovery's agenda against Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc.

 

In a complete and utter corruption of the council's long standing policy, requiring any councillor who has any interest in a matter serving before the council to recuse them self, and not be involved or privy to anything concerning such matters, Millar not only refused to recuse himself, but actively drove and continues to drive his and his master Discovery's agenda at council meetings, and has shamefully been permitted by the council to front the attack on Ronald, Darren and RBP in the media and elsewhere.

 

RBP have been furnished with the minutes of the council meetings concerned, by a councillor who is horrified at the corruption of the council, but is afraid to speak out due to Discovery's record of destroying anyone who stands up to it, and as arrogantly stated by Katz.

 

A letter sent to the Law Society by RBP's attorneys, seeking an undertaking that Millar would not be permitted to be involved or privy to any council meetings or correspondence relating to RBP, was simply ignored by the Discovery proxy packed council. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE AND SCANDALOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND AGAIN SHAMES AND TAINTS THE LAW SOCIETY'S ONCE PROUD RECORD OF INTEGRITY.

 

LETTER FROM RBP'S ATTORNEYS TO THE LSNP - CLICK HERE TO READ

DISCOVERY'S KATZ AND MEDIA LACKEY BEAMISH, EXPRESS THEIR ELATION AT THE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME OF THE DISCOVERY/ENS SCAM TO MAKE MILLAR PRESIDENT - CLICK HERE TO READ

The ONLY complaints ever made against the firm in respect of its contingency fees have been by a handful of clients unlawfully solicited by Discovery to Millar, or by Millar himself as deposed to by RBP clients Clint Coleman and Martha Kok, where Beamish in the course of his engagement to serve Discovery's interests attempted to solicit them to Millar.

AFFIDAVIT BY MARTHA KOCK - CLICK HERE TO READ

AFFIDAVIT BY CLINT COLEMAN - CLICK HERE TO READ

RONALDS OPPOSING AFFIDAVIT JANUARY 2016 TO DISCOVERY APPLICATION - CLICK HERE TO READ

ANNEXURES TO ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT PART 1 - CLICK HERE TO READ

ANNEXURES TO ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT PART 2 - CLICK HERE TO READ

ANNEXURES TO ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT PART 3 - CLICK HERE TO READ

Ironically one of such clients, Glen Vivian after insisting that his claim be settled for the paltry R45 000 offered by the Road Accident Fund, eventually received R4.4 million after Darren and Ronald managed to persuade him to persist in the claim. His email expressing his gratitude to Darren can be read below, but after he was incited by Millar and others, he suddenly "complained" about Darren Bobroff’s 25% contingency fee. Perhaps Darren should not have done his duty as an attorney and should have permitted Vivian to accept the R45 000.00 offer.

 

READ THE EMAILS - CLICK HERE

 

Despite Discovery attorneys Millar and Van Niekerk maliciously and dishonestly stating that RBP charged percentage contingency fees of 40% or more, RBP have never charged more than the usual 25 - 30% fee in terms of such an agreement. Where an attorney charges on a time basis such as Millar professes to do, there is no cap on the time fee charged, and which is not limited to any percentage of the damages recovered for the client.

 

Millar being the dishonest hypocrit that he is, entered into an invalid and unlawful Common Law Contingency Fee Agreement with Ms. de la Guerre, the former RBP client/Discovery member he touted, to use as a puppet in attacking RBP's Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements.

 

CLICK HERETO VIEW MILLAR'S AGREEMENT WITH DE LA GUERRE

CLICK HERE TO VIEW AN OPINION BY ADVOCATE JUSTIN ERASMUS ON THE ABOVE AGREEMENT WHICH HE DESCRIBES AS AN INVALID AND UNLAWFUL COMMON LAW CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENT 

Millar continues to use such agreement, and despite complaints being made against him and his partner Norman Berger to the Law Society, consistent with Discovery's Katz's boast to Darren Bobroff on the 16th June 2015 that Darren should not bother lodging complaints against Katz or Millar, as such complaints "would go nowhere", the Law Society's Jaco Fourie indeed saw to it that the complaints went nowhere.

 

CARTE BLANCHE

 

Those at Carte Blanche who have furthered Discovery's interests, every one of whom involved in the attack is in some way financially beholden to Discovery, have scrupulously refused to mention or make reference to the numerous other well-known plaintiff attorneys who quite properly and ethically utilised Law Society compliant common law percentage fee agreements, copies of which were given to them.

 

This includes De Broglio, Josephs, Levin Van Zyl, Hirshowitz Flionis, Munro Flowers Vermaak and others.  Similarly they have deliberately failed to mention that Fluxmans partner ,Selwyn Perlman ,who conducted an extensive personal injury practice, ethically and properly also utilized the identical percentage fee agreements utilized by RBP and tens of thousands of other attorneys, and who likewise find themselves victims of an attack by Millar for personal financial gain, where Millar has sued them on behalf of their former client  Levensohn on an identical basis to the multiple attacks by Millar on Ronald, Darren and the Practice of RBP Inc. in respect of the Practices Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements.

 

FULL CARTE BLANCHE INTERVIEW - CLICK TO READ

KATZ AND C BLANCHES MAZARAKIS OBVIOUSLY CLOSE - CLICK TO READ

 

RBP'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT

 

In September 2015 and consequent upon allegations by Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk, media assassin Beamish, and accountant for hire Vincent Faris, who had been instructed and paid by Discovery and furnished with RBP's enitre client database stolen from the Practice server by RBP bookkeeper and serial fraudster Bernadine van Wyk for Discovery, in return for monetary and other gratification offered to her by Discovery, that the Practice had missappropriated client funds and contravened almost every statute which could be remotely applicable to an Incorporated Law Practice, a written invitation was extended to the Law Society to conduct an extensive audit of the Practices books of account.

 

Despite an intensive Law Society audit extending over 3 weeks, RBP's books of account did not reflect a cent trust shortage, but an excess of R27 million. Not a single client has ever complained to date, notwithstanding the relentless and corrupt campaign waged by Discovery, of not having been paid what was due to him or her, and despite a false allegation by the junior Law Society employee Ashwin Reddy in his contrived report that "the firm poses a risk to the Attorneys Fidelity Fund", the court appointed curator to the Practice of RBP Inc. found exactly the contrary to be the case, when he reported that the Practices trust account balanced to the cent, and that not a single claim had been lodged by any of the Practices cleints against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund i.e. no theft whatsoever.

 

RBP's books are audited annually and no concerns have ever been expressed by its auditors during its 42-year existence. The firm regularly received certificates from the Attorney’s Fidelity Fund in recognition of the enormous amounts of interest the firm has paid to the Fidelity Fund.

 

ZERO CLAIMS LETTER FROM FIDELITY FUND - CLICK TO READ 

 

DISCOVERY'S MEDIA LACKEY, TONY KILROY BEAMISH

 

Beamish admitted to all three RBP directors in January 2014, that he had been "brought back" from the south of France where he lives, to South Africa by Discovery. He has since then, and despite professing to be a journalist, written about nothing else than attacks on Ronald, Darren, RBP, and anyone associated with them, or the firm. To date he has written in excess of 45 malicious attacks, primarily in fringe publications such as Moneyweb and Noseweek.

Moneyweb which continues to lose money and has recently again chagned hands, seems set to disappear into insolvency, and obviously welcomes Beamish's hysterical drivel, as a means to boost its flagging fortunes.

 

During a recent court hearing March 10, 2016, where Beamish's vicious and puerile tweets and other social media attacks on Ronald and Darren were canvassed, including Beamish sending his filth to the parents of the children in Darren Bobroff’s children school class, and having regard to the shocking levels to which Beamish stooped in these communications, the presiding Judge Neil Tuchten was sufficiently disgusted to describe Beamish as:

 

beamish"THROUGHLY MEANSPIRITED "

"HIS WRITING AS "DOGGEREL” and

"I DONT THINK I WOULD LIKE A PERSON LIKE THAT TO HAVE A MEAL IN MY HOUSE "

ONE CAN ONLY BUT TOTALLY AGREE, WITH THE JUDGES OPINION OF BEAMISHES CHARACTER! 

Beamish recruited RBP employee Cora van der Merwe to serve as his spy and thief in the Practice, and she obligingly stole Practice, client and directors personal information off the Practices server and emailed all of this to Beamish.

Invesitgators indicated that tis was the case, and renowned forensic investigator Mr.Paul O'Sullivan interviewed Cora van der Merwe on the 14th October 2014.

After van der Merwe initially denied the allegations against her, she eventually confessed in full when confronted with scores of emails containing stolen material to Beamish. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MR PAUL O'SULLIVANS AFFIDAVIT 

Fourteen months later she suddenly laid charges of kidnapping against Mr O'Sullivan and his assistant Ms. Naidu. The NPA ever keen to attack Mr O'Sullivan and of course by then firmly under the influence of Discovery and its attorneys jumped at the opportunity of prosecuting Mr O'Sullivan and Ms.Naidu.

After years of court appearances and millions of rands in legal fees the preciding magistrate threw out ven der Merwes trumped up allegations and the NPA's trumped up charges and labelled van der Merwe as an "evasive liar", and her theft of material from RBP for Beamish as "malicious and unlawful".

Given that van der Merwe made herself guilty of theft and that she did so at the instance of Beamish, advice has been received that Beamish could and should be charged as being an accessory to theft, and it is understood that Mr. O'Sullivan and Ms.Naidu are considering the various options against Beamish and Millar whom it is understood, put van der Merwe up to laying charges against them, as also with regards to van der Merwe.

LAW SOCIETY EXPOSES DISCOVERY, AND EDWARD NATHAN'S GEORGE VAN NIEKERK, AS BEING BEHIND THE ATTACK ON RONALD, DARREN AND RBP INC.

EXPLOSIVE QUOTES FROM PRESIDENT MABUNDA'S AFFIDAVITS - CLICK HERE TO READ

            

 

1. "No matter what it takes, no matter what its costs, we (Discovery) will destroy you all"

A threat repeatedly uttered by Discovery's Jeffrey Katz, to RBP Director Stephen Bezuidenhout, Darren Bobroff and  Advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C during a matter where Cassim represented the firm.

The reason for the threat was Ronald and Darrens inadvertant exposure of decades of institutionalised defrauding of members of Discovery Health who had sustained injury in road accidents, by Discovery's Broomberg, Schwartzbery and Katz. 

2. "The Trust account balances to the cent " - no client funds misappropriated whatsoever

Extract from the report of the Curator appointed by the Court to the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc, after Darren and his family and Ronald, were forced to flee South Africa for fear of their lives, after receiving threats which could only have come from sources connected to Discovery.

3. "No claims have been lodged with the Attorneys Fidelity Fund" -  This is a fund set up by the Profession to repay clients from whom their attorneys stole money.

Extract from the Court appointed Curator/Inspectors report concerning the Practice of RBP Inc.

The Curators report clearly exposes the malicious lies and defamation pumped out by Discovery's proxies, Attorney Anthony Millar, Anthony Beamish, Ant Katz, as also by spokespersons of the National Prosecuting Authority and the Hawks, that " hundreds of millions of Rands had been stolen", and subsequently even more absurd allegations, that the amount stolen had by October 2016 been found to have exceeded R1 billion! ; to be dishonest fabrications.

Sadly the South African Jewish Report has been captured by Discovery, and has become little more than a mouth piece for the drivel put out by Beamish. Given that its controlling board includes Shawn Mattison, Discovery executive and others who have business and/or personal relationships with Discovery and its directors, it is no accident that within days of Beamish's drivel being published, as had been the case since 2016, firstly online in Moneyweb, followed the day after in the Citizen, and then religiously, or perhaps not so religiously but disgracefully in the Jewish Report.

This publication is now regarded widely within South Africa's Jewish Community as being little more than a scandal sheet, and a forum for those who control the publication and their friends, to stroke each others egos by way of fawning articles of praise. Never mind that some of the recipients of the praise, have a long history of being scoundrels.

One wonders why recent reports in the media complete with photographs of three senior Jewish Advocates who were exposed by the courts taxing master as having charged eight times more than the law permits , did not merit a one liner, let alone a full page as is always the case with Darren and Ronald Bobroff.

Similarly an alleged massive tax fraud engineered by Edward Nathan for the benefit of Christo Wiese, a director of the disgraced Steinhoff group of companies, as also unnamed Edward Nathan members, has so far not merited a single mention in the Jewish Report online, or heaven forbid in print and one awaits with interest to see whether this will ever occur.

The total amount of money received by the Practice from the Road Accident Fund in respect of compensation obtained for clients, together with that portion of the costs payable by the Road Accident Fun in respect of the accounts of all experts and advocates whose services had been utilised during the period, was approximately a Billion Rand for the decade December 2006 - March 2016.

Therefore the allegations above of theft of a Billion Rand, that would have the astonishing result that not one of the Practices thousands of clients, over more than a decade would have received a cents compensation, and not a single advocate or medico legal expert would have been paid, as we together with our partner Stephen Bezuidenhout ,would have pocketed the entire Billion Rand!

That such nonsense should be publically alledged by the National Prosecuting Authority, leads one to understand why it has been constantly under attack in the Courts and by various public interest bodies committed to the rule of law as being incompetent, riddled with corruption and serving agendas other than those which South Africas costitution requires it to follow.

A number of key and senior officials of the NPA and the Hawks have been found guilty of corruption by the courts, and the head of the NPA currently faces a court application to remove him from office.

* Refer to the section on Forensic Investigator Paul O'Sullivan below.

4.The charging of common Law percentage contingency fees of between 25-30% on damages recovered for clients by RBP Inc, is theft! -  This allegation has been made by Discovery proxy, shady ambulance chaser Anthony Millar who has previously and continues to overcharge the vulnerable, and often illiterate black road accident victims, he touts from Natalspruit Hospital.

Far from limiting his fees to the 25% of the damages recovered for the client as the Constitutional Court finally ruled in February 2014 to be the maximum contingency fee permissable, Millar's unlawful common law contingency fee agreement specifically states in paragraph 1.2 that "The fees on an attorney and own client scale will be calculated on a time basis and in this respect I understand "any other basis"means:- "that it is not limited to a fee relative to", "the amount involved (as the amount involved shall not in any way be taken into account nor shall it have any effect on this agreement or the rate charged".

Click (www.toutingattorneys.co.za) to view some of the interviews with his touted clients

It is clearly no coincidence that the N.P.A has parroted Millar's allegations, in a malicious High Court application brought  by it, unlawfully seeking to misappropriate our lawful offshore lifesavings, as Millar's co-conspirator Discovery's attorney Mr. George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town who has made the same allegations, is known together with his brother who is a senior N.P.A prosecutor in Cape Town to have brought extensive pressure to bear on the N.P.A, so as to further Discovery's agenda that "no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all", be fulfilled.

Significantly, and notwithstanding that the Law Society has confirmed in affidavits filed in court, that more than 74% of its 16 000 members would only represent personal injury clients on a Common Law Contingency percentage basis, and which the Law Society permitted,promoted and encouraged from 2002 to 2014, one wanders why the Council of the Law Society, controlled by Discovery since 2015 to date (click here to read how that was achieved); has failed to attack or strike off any other one of its thousands of members, but only targeted us after it was hijacked by Discovery in October 2015.

Many observers have wondered why the NPA have not attempted to freeze or seize RBP Director and shareholder Stephen Bezuidenhout's funds and/or assets, given that Bezuidenhout's share in the Practice was greater than that held by Darren Bobroff, and that Bezuidenhout received millions from the Practice by way of salary and dividends, most of which was exported to Malta to purchase two multi million Rand flats.

Further to the extent that Bezuidenhouts money was earned from the Practices Common Law Contingency Fee income, if for arguments sake that fee income was regarded by the NPA as the proceeds of crime, Bezuidenhouts assets to the extent that they were purchased with the proceeds of such income, would also then be subjected to freezing and seizure by the NPA and Assets Forfeiture unit.

It should be clearly understood that any allegation that any fee income earned by the Practice was the proceeds of crime is absurd and denied, but the example is given simply to illustrate how mysterious it is as to why Bezuidenhout has been left untouched by the NPA.

The answer to this is that the NPA is clearly, and at the very least strongly under the influence of Discovery, and its attorneys Edward Nathan as it has only sought to attack two directors of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc., being Ronald and Darren Bobroff, as has consistantly been the case by Discovery and its attorney George van Niekerk.

Similarly Millar who acts on the instructions of Discovery/van Niekerk in the furtherance of Discovery's vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff, and in return for having successfully received protection against being struck off the roll of attorneys by the captive Law Society, and also being rewarded by being appointed to Discovery's so called panel attorneys, which is nothing other than a sophisticated touting scam, has similarly only attacked Ronald and Darren Bobroff.

Within days of Ronald and Darren and his family, as a consequence of terrifying and credible threats, and which can only have come from sources within Discovery, were forced to flee for fear of their lives, Millar met with Bezuidenhout and Zimerman who had entered into an agreement previously to purchase the Practices current client files, but which agreement Discovery's attorney van Niekerk had urgently applied to the court to set aside.

RBP auditor Mr Andrew Fischer was also present at that meeting held at the Practices office on the 31st March 2016.

In his affidavit which may be viewed by clicking here, Mr Fischer describes how Millar abused his Discovery engineered position as President of the Law Society for personal financial benefit, to intimidate and to therafter entice Bezuidenhout and Zimerman to enter into a fraudulent agreement with him, the effect of which would be to enable Millar on behalf of his Masters at Discovery and ENS to obtain judgments based on fraudulent agreements with Bezuidenhout and Zimerman, against Ronald and Darren Bobroff.

These judgments would then be, and were used by Millar to attach Ronald and Darrens assets, and also to to terrorise Ronalds wife, by repeatedly sending the Sheriff of the Court with instructions to attach and remove the 30 year old contents of her home.

The deal proposed by Millar was that with regard to Zimerman, in return for Zimerman fraudulently, and unethically colluding with Bezuidenhout to abandon the valid agreements in terms of the Contingency Fees Act entered into with those former RBP clients who Millar had touted and incited to challenge RBP's fees, was that Millar would see to it that the Law Society would permit Zimerman to retain all the RBP client Road Accident Fund matters which had been transferred to Zimerman , to remain with him, notwithstanding that it was clear that the application brought by Discovery to set aside the sale of such files by RBP to Zimerman would succeed. Indeed Millar kept to his part of the bargain.

The reward for Bezuidenhout for his betraying Ronald Bobroff with whom he has served his articles of clerkship in 1976, had joined as partner from 1989, and who had grown rich and comfortable thanks to  Ronalds ability to build the Practice into one of the most successful personal injury Practices in South Africa, was that Millar being the President of the very Law Society who had applied to the court to have Bezuidenhout struck off the roll of attorneys, was perversely that Millar would see to it that Bezuidenhout was not struck off the roll, and Millar permitted Bezuidenhout's attorney Mr Trevor Fagri to draft the affidavit for Millars signature, and which was then filed in court in the striking matter effectively opposing Bezuidenhout being struk off, and to no ones surprise in what a senior colleague wa sin court reported in a "choreographed"sequence of events including a remark by one of the judges that "Bezuidenhout was little more than an employee of RBP" (despite Bezuidenhout being a man in his sixties, having been a partner with the Practice since 1989, running his own Practice within the Practice, with his own team under his direct control, coming and going as he pleased, seemingly always away on holiday and most definitely his own boss, was hardly "merely an employee"), but so skillfull was the web of deceit woven that Bezuidenhout was presented as one of the three monkeys who see, hear and know no evil.

No prizes for guessing why the NPA has ignored RBP partner Mr Stephen Bezuidenhouts Millions of Dollars in offshore assets in Malta(a clue - Bezuidenhout permitted himself to be captured by Discovery proxy Millar, for personal financial and other benefit), click here to read an affidavit by RBP Practice auditor Mr Andrew Fischer exposing the collusion between Bezuidenhout and Millar. 

Regrettably the captured Law Society Council and its legal representatives, in addition to deliberately withholding the Curators report from the Court which struck us off by default, after denying us an opportunity of being heard, they likewise also failed to bring to the Courts attention the fact of its having permitted, promoted and encouraged the use of identical fee agreements utilised by RBP and thousands of the Law Society's members, it's 49 page affidavit filed in court click here to view in the landmark de la Guerre'Case in support of the lawfulness and public benefit brought about by common law percentage contingency fee agreements, as well as the emphatic endorsement by a highly respected Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcom Wallis in a paper in September 2010 and where he stated;

"Whilst we have a statute that regulates this topic, it is badly drafted and generally ignored by the attorneys who act on Contingency  In practical terms these attorneys conduct litigation on a no win no fee basis where, at the successful conclusion of a case, they will tax a convention bill of costs (which covers a fair proportion, but not all of their disbursements) and charge over and above that a proportion, usually 25% though sometimes less with small claims, of the damages recovered"

This being the case, how could it ever be alledged that the use of such agreements was improper, let alone, absurdly, theft?

5. In a letter written by the Law Society to the Pretoria High Court Deputy Judge President on the 12th October 2011, strongly justifying its support of common law percentage contigency fee agreements it stated:

“For example although no minimum or maximum percentage is prescribed and given that attorneys and their clients are free to negotiate a contract in the same way as any other contract between competent parties, we indicated to our members that should the 25% cap referred to in the Act, be exceeded, it will have to be justified, having regard to the various aspects which will have to be consideredsuch. This will inter alia include the complexity of the matter, the overhead cost structure of the firm, the extent of the disbursments to be covered by the attorney, the anticipated period that the attorney would have to carry  such disbursments and wait for payment of fees, as well as other criteria such as those referred to in Rule 80 of the Law Society's rules. 

Following the judment given in the matter of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc./ National Potato Co-Operative Ltd. by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the lack of certainty as to whether a Court would uphold common law contingency fee agreements as a result thereof, we have cautioned our members to provide for alternative fee agreements with clients in the event that the common law agreement was disputed or ruled invalid by a Court".

This threat which was made by Discovery's in-house medical costs debt collector Mr Jeffrey Katz, and as referred to at the beginning of this site, "no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will destroy you all" ,was made repeatedly after Darren and Ronald Bobroff, whilst defending clients Mark and Jody Bellon, against Katz and Discovery's fraud and bullying, inadvertently exposed decades of institutionalised defrauding by Discovery Health of its members who sustained injury in road accidents.

As stated below, this exposure led to thousands of attorneys advising hundreds of thousands of their clients that were Discovery members, that they were not obliged to give in to Katz's threats to deprive them of accident generated medical care, and this in turn according to a letter written by Katz to the Law Society in 2011, led to the amount which Discovery had been extorting out of its members who had sustained injuries in road accidents, dropping to 25% of what had been the case prior to the criminal and fraudulent cnduct by Katz and his employers being exposed. See the extract of the letter below and Click here to read the entire letter

"Discovery is suffering ongoing, mounting harm as a result of teh Society's failure to date either to withdraw or to correct the LSSA notice circulated at the start of the month. We confirm that, since the LSSA notice Discovery has recovered less than 25% of its usual recoveries of past medical expenses for a corresponding time period

Ironically, Katz who was accused in affidavits made by a number of RBP clients of attempting to bribe them into turning against us, and malicioulsy threatened and defamed us from 2011 to date, whilst portraying himself as a paragon of virtue, recently exited his position as national chairperson of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies under questionable circumstances.

Katz who had been a member of the Council of the South African Board of Jewish deputies for fifteen years , including two years as its national chairman, together with Mr Doron Joffe, the boards treasurer and longstanding board council member(also coincidentally a partner in Discovery's attorneys Edward Nathan), accused the board of financial irregularities.

One is puzzled how such an accusation can be made, given that Katz fails to explain how this startling fact had never previously come to his or Joffee's attention during the many years that they had both been members of the Jewish Reports board.

COMMON LAW PERCENTAGE CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS - ROUTINELY AMOUNTING TO BETWEEN 25 - 30% OF DAMAGES RECOVERED WAS THE NORM FOR OVER 70% OF ALL SOUTH AFRICA'S PRACTICING ATTORNEYS FOR SOME TWELVE YEARS.

However and notwithstanding that Katz/Discovery's local panel of attorneys were instructed by Katz to only utilise such agreements, he and his proxies Mr Anthony Millar (go to toutingattorneys.co.za) and Mr George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town were magically able to "convince" the National Prosecuting Authority, that the use of such agreements suddenly became theft, because a Civil Court held in 2014 that such agreements were invalid.

Of course no such allegation is made in respect of Katz/Discovery's panel attorneys, who on Katz's instructions utilised such agreements, nor the 74% of the Law Societys 16 000 members, who responded to a Law Society survey to the effect that the only agreements they used were common law percentage fee agreements.

Unsuprisingly and given that Millar had become Discovery's proxy in return for Disocvery attorneys ENS ensuring that the dozens of touting complaints against Millar at the Law Society, would be quietly shelved in return for Millar attacking RBP's Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements, and routinely issued vulgar statements to the media and published same on social media, attacking Ronald and Darren, he was coyly silent about attorney Selwyn Perlman of Fulxmans use of a Common Law Percentage Contingency Fee Agreement in the matter of Levensohns vs Fluxmans in which Millar unsuccessfully attacked Perlmans agreement with Levensohn, and in which the Appeal Court held that Levensohns claim against Fluxmans had prescribed, as more than three years had passed from the date of Perlmans accounting to Levensohn.

CHRONOLOGY AND TIMELINE

1.28 September 1998 – Judgment by Cameron J in the Headleigh Clinic Case No.28862/97 reported in SALR 2001 (4) SA 360 dealing with an attorney’s 25% common-law contingency fee agreement in which the Court held the agreement to be valid. Significantly this judgement was delivered AFTER the promulgation of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997, attached hereto as Annexure “RBA1”.

Annexure "RBA1" Headleigh Private Hospital - click here to read 

Following on widespread screening of American Trial Movies throughout South Africa featuring the American system of one third percentage contingency fees, Plaintiff Attorneys are inundated by requests from clients to contract on that basis, and enquiries thereafter directed to the LSNP which resolves to investigate South African Law on the issue.

2.30 May 2002 – The Law Society of the Northern Provinces obtains an Opinion from Advocate Labuschagne SC which expresses the view that common-law contingency fee agreements are valid and can co-exist with the Contingency Fees Act, such Act not in any way specifically prohibiting common-law agreements, attached as Annexure “RB2A”.

Annexure RB2A Opinion by Advocate Labuschagne SC - Click here to read

3. August 2002 – Law Society of the Northern Provinces regulating more than 60% of Attorneys in Practice, issues a ruling enthusiastically permitting its members to enter into common-law percentage fee agreements. The ruling authored by Councillor and Court Practice Committee Chair, C P Fourie, refers to 25% as the effective norm, and enthusiastically remarks “A step forward? For sure!”,attached as Annexure “RBA3”.

Annexure RBA3 - Contingency Fee Agreements ruling by LSNP - Click here to read

4. October 2003 – The Law Society of the Northern Provinces issues a further confirmation of its earlier ruling in which it notes that “It is now more than a year since the Law Society of the Northern Provinces gave the green light to its members to enter into common law contingency fee agreements with their clients. The feedback is that it was well received and that, by and large, it works well”. Again 25% is effectively referred to as the norm, given that such percentage is specified in the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997, attached as Annexure “RBA4”.

Annexure RBA4 Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements further confirmation of ruling by LSNP - Click here to read

5.The ruling by the the Law Society of the Northern Provinces is adopted and supported by the  Free State Law Society.

6.The rulings by the two Law Societies is adopted and supported by the Black Lawyers Association, bringing the number of attorneys officially permitted and encourage to utilise such agreements up to some 70% of the profession.

7.Feedback by Natal members of the South African Personal Injury Lawyers (SAAPIL) was that the use of such agreements was universal amongst all Plaintiff Personal Injury attorneys.

8. 1 June 2004 – Price Waterhouse Case – 448/2003)[2004]ZASCA 64;[2004] 3 All SA (SCA) (1 June 2004).

The Supreme Court of Appeal decides that the decade’s long prohibition against maintenance and champerty i.e. prohibiting litigation funders form receiving a share of the proceeds of litigation, is no longer a part of South Africa’s common-law. Therefore it is lawful and valid for lay persons to receive a percentage of the damages recovered in actions funded by them. In that case the percentage contracted was for 45% of the millions eventually recovered from Price Waterhouse. A by the way remark, referred to by Lawyers as “obiter”, was made by one Judge to the effect that Attorneys would not be permitted to do that which the Court had now said could be done by unregulated lay persons, a copy attached hereto as Annexure “RBA5”.

Annexure RBA5 - Price Waterhouse Case - Summary Click here to read

8.1 The Law Society of the Northern Provinces obtains opinions from three senior advocates, all of whom agreed that the statement by the one Judge was “obiter”. i.e. by the way, and not to be regarded as a binding ruling by the Court. Many Lawyers interpreted the Court’s decision as developing South Africa’s common-law so as to enhance the Public’s access to the Courts. It was believed that it would be discriminatory and inconsistent, for attorneys, who are tightly regulated by the Law Societies, not to be permitted to do that which the Court had stated could be done by completely unregulated lay persons.

8.2 As the Contingency Fees Act did not anywhere state that Attorneys could not represent clients on a no win – no fee basis, otherwise than in terms of the Act, it was the opinion of Advocate Labuschagne SC on behalf of the LSNP and subsequently Advocates M Brassey SC and Hopkins, in the de la Guerre and SAAPIL matters, that common-law contingency fee agreements could validly exist side by side with the Contingency Fees Act.

9.2005 – The Law Society of the Northern Provinces informs its members that after taking opinions from senior advocates on the Price Waterhouse obiter – by the way remark of the Judge, the advocates and the Law Society remain of the opinion that common-law percentage contingency fees are permissible and valid. Again 25% is referred to as the norm.

10.On 23 September 2008, and after Millar had attacked his colleague, Attorney Deon Goldschmidt’s Law Society compliant common-law contingency fee agreement, the then President of the LSNP filed an affidavit expressing the Council’s strong support for such agreements, which was essentially the same as the 27 page one filed in the de la Guerre matter, attached hereto as Annexure “RBA6”.

Annexure RBA6 - Affidavit J C Janse van Rensburg - Click here to read

11.August 2010 – Highly respected Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcolm Wallis, presented a paper at an international conference on legal costs. He had the following to say concerning fee litigation in South Africa:

“Contingency fee agreements have been relatively successful in South Africa in making personal injury litigation available to even the very poor in our community. Whilst we have a statute that regulates this topic it is badly drafted and generally ignored by the attorneys who act on a contingency. In practical terms these attorneys conduct litigation on a ‘no win-no fee’ basis where, at the successful conclusion of a case, they will tax a conventional bill of costs (which covers a fair proportion, but not all, of their disbursements) and charge over and above that, a proportion, usually 25% though sometimes less with small claims, of the damages recovered. The latter fee is not recoverable from the other side. Whilst there are occasional complaints of over-reaching in these arrangements by and large they appear to work well and people are willing to sacrifice part of their damages in return for making some recovery”.

“Lastly if something can be done to break the near universal reliance on charging by time, particularly by attorneys, but increasingly by counsel, that would be a good thing. Our courts have bemoaned it as a basis for charging fees; describing it as putting a premium on slowness and inefficiency”.

The Judges paper is attached with the relevant portions marked and attached hereto as “RBA7”.

Annexure "RBA7" Paper by Malcom Wallis - Click here to read

12.It was stated in the de la Guerre judgment, an inexplicably the court state that as a seasoned practitioner Ronald should have been aware of what he referred to as the “numerous authorities holding common law contingency fees to be invalid, and further that Ronald should have been aware of the letter written by the Judge President to the Natal Law Society in which he expressed his disapproval.

12.1 However such comment with respect was wholly incorrect and inappropriate, and quite clearly so imminent a lawyer as Supreme Court Judge Malcolm Wallis was also clearly unaware. He was also clearly unaware of any letter from the Judge President to the Natal Law Society, as referred to, or regarded it as irrelevant almost a decade later.

12.2 Had he been aware of such authority, he would surely have mentioned this in his paper, which was thereafter published the following year in the professional journal “The Advocate”.

Again one presumes that had the publishers of the Advocate’s Journal or the editor thereof, been aware as at August 2011 of any South African Case Law holding common-law contingency fee agreements to be invalid or unlawful, the editor would have placed a note at the commencement of the article or at the end, indicating that since the learned Judge had presented his paper, there had been such a decision.

13. In the LSSA’s (Law Society of South Africa) annual report March 2011 at page 28 thereof, Mr Clem Druker, Chairperson of the LSSA’s Contingency Fees Committee, and also at the time a serving member of the Council of the Cape Law Society, announced on behalf of the Cape Law Society that:

“Given the fact that the Cape Law Society Council is now prepared, in principle, to side with all the other bodies which recognize common-law contingency fees...” attached hereto as Annexure “RBA8”.

Annexure RBA8 Law Society South Africa Annual Report March 2011 - Clem Druker annouces.. Click here to read

13.1 Significantly, Discovery’s attorney, Mr George van Niekerk, who has consistently severely criticized RBP, and by implication of the Councils of the LSNP and Free State Law Societies, as also the Black Lawyers Association who had consistently promoted and supported common-law percentage contingency agreements, as also every one of the many thousands of attorneys who utilized common-law contingency fee agreements and on Cape Councillor and/or on its committee.

14. In November 2011 LSNP President, Mr Tony Thobane, an oft acting Judge of the High Court, had the following to say concerning common-law contingency fee agreements in his President’s report:

“We plan to do everything in our power to ensure that when issues around the common law fee agreements are litigated upon, the interests of our members are protected, intertwined with the interests of our members, are the interests of the public for whom the common law fee agreements provide access to justice. The cause is worth fighting for and neither effort nor resource will be spared”. Attached as Annexure “RBA9”.

Annexure RBA9 - President Tony Thobane comments concerning Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements - Click here to read

15. On the 6 December 2011, Law Society of the Northern Provinces President, Mr Johannes van Rensburg, deposed to an affidavit filed in court in the de la Guerre matter, in which inter alia had the following to say concerning common-law contingency fee agreements as attached in annexure “RBA6”.

Annexure RBA6 LSNP Affidavit J C Janse van Rensburg - Click here to read

“On 21 June 2002 the Council of the Law Society made a ruling permitting its members to enter into certain common law contingency fee agreements other than in terms of the provisions of the contingency Fees Act”.

“The interest of the Law Society in the present application is to advance legal argument pertaining to the validity of common law contingency fee agreements”.

The Law Society advances the following contentions:

15.1 that the same need expressed by the public and members of the Law Society and which gave rise to the enactment of the Contingency Fees Act continued to be expressed with increasing urgency with regard to the introduction of a simple, easily understood and equitable contingency fee agreement, given the perceived unpopularity and impracticality of the agreement provided for in terms of the Contingency Fees Act;

15.2 that consequent upon decades of screening on South African televisions and cinema circuits of American programs depicting various forms of contingency fee litigation, for example Erin Brokovitch, a Civil Trial and others the South African public have become exposed to the concept of the simple, fair and workable American Percentage Contingency Fee Agreements. The Law Society has in turn been informed by many of its members, that clients request that members enter into such agreements, rather than the complicated agreement provided for in terms of the Contingency Fees Act after the details of the agreement in terms of the aforesaid Contingency Fees Act have been discussed with the clients;

15.3 that given that the majority of victims of all forms of wrongfully caused personal injuries, suffer financial loss such as to render them unable to afford legal services in the normal way, an acknowledged need has arisen for assistance via common law contingency fee agreements, so as to enable such victims to assert their rights to claim damages against the wrongdoer;

15.4 that the inequality of arms which prevails between the majority of road accident victims on the one hand and the large and powerful institutions such as the Road Accident Fund/Insurance companies on the other hand, speaks to a particular need for personal injury victims to gain access to justice through easily understandable and practical common law contingency fee agreements;

15.5 That the common law recognises circumstances under which a valid common law contingency fee agreement may be concluded;

15.6 That the aforesaid circumstances are in consonance with the constitutional right of persons to have access to the Courts as enshrined in the Constitution;

15.7 Alternatively, that if it is held that the common law referred to supra does not exist as a matter of right, it will be submitted that the common law needs to be developed in terms of Section 39 (2) of the Constitution to incorporate the right to conclude a common law contingency fee agreement in the circumstances envisaged supra;

15.8 That the Contingency Fees Act, whilst constituting an admirable attempt at providing access to justice by litigants unable to afford the normal costs of litigation, has unfortunately by virtue of its impractical and unworkable provisions not been utilised by the attorneys’ profession to any significant extent;

15.9 The wording of the Contingency Fees Act is ambiguous and problematic. A straight percentage fee is not provided for, but rather a complicated formula in which the attorney is initially required to stipulate a so-called normal fee. In terms of Rule 80 of the Law Society’s Rules an attorney’s normal fee is subject to a whole variety of parameters and this provision in itself would no doubt give rise to endless disputes in the context of a contingency fee agreement;

15.10 That the normal fee is then to be doubled upon a successful conclusion of a matter, but the total of the success fee is not to exceed 25% of the monetary result obtained. Whereas it was always understood that the 25% maximum referred only to the attorney’s fee, it was recently held in the matter of RMA van der Merwe v Mariette Geldenhuys, Case No.36216/06 (WLD) that counsel’s fees are also to be included under the 25% cap. This demonstrates the unworkability of the Contingency Fees Act as in many cases this would result in the attorney’s fee being negligible in relation, to say senior counsel’s fees;

15.11 That in terms of Section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act where summons has been served, the legal practitioner is obliged to file an onerous and extensive affidavit with regard to any offer of settlement, and which is in addition to be accompanied in terms of Section 4 (2) by an affidavit from the client. Given that a number of offers are usually made in most personal injury claims, some times during the days preceding the trial and on the day of the trial, this section results in the absurd situation of attorneys and their clients having to make repeated affidavits each time a new offer is made;

15.12 That given that;

15.12.1 the Contingency Fees Act was promulgated in 1997 and the prescribed agreement in 1999;


15.12.2 the vast majority of RAF claims are handled on a contingency basis;


15.12.3 most RAF claims are settled prior to reaching trial stage;


15.12.4 some two hundred thousand claims are lodged against the RAF annually primarily by attorneys and that from 1999 to date in excess of one million claims would have been lodged by attorneys on behalf of clients;

An irresistible inference must be drawn that attorneys and their clients in RAF matters are not utilising the agreements in terms of the Contingency Fees Act to any extent as only one (1) affidavit in terms of Section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act was filed with the Law Society during the first ten years that the Contingency Fees Act has been in force. Some attorneys have submitted copies of agreements concluded between themselves and clients to the Law Society, although it was not necessary to do so as follows: 2001-1, 2005-11, 2005-29, 2007-15,2008-8,2010-18 and 2011-21;

*(i.e. a reasonable inference is that at least 1 million RAF claims were handled by attorneys who charged at least a 25% common law contingency fee).


15.13 that the Law Society’s ruling on common law contingency fee agreements has been followed by at least the Law Society of the Free State and the Black Lawyers Association;


16.During the period 1999 to date the Law Society’s records indicate that some complaints were received from clients relating to overreaching and some overcharging. Of these complaints very few related to fees in terms of common law contingency fee agreements.


16.1 In 2000 the Law Society conducted survey amongst its members. A copy of the Law Society’s letter containing the relevant questions and answers are attached hereto as Annexure “RBA10”.

Annexure "RBA10" Law Society Member Survey - Click here to read

16.2 The relevant questions and the average response thereto are:


16.2.1 What percentage of plaintiffs in your practice has a need for assistance by means of common-law percentage contingency agreement in order to assert their claims in court?


Answer : 94.94%


16.2.2 In what percentage of cases administered by your practice is a common law percentage contingency fee agreement utilised?


Answer : 76.4%


16.2.3 If you utilise common law percentage contingency fee agreements, do you ascertain the prospects of success before entering into such agreements with client?


Answer : Yes


17.In the North Gauteng High Court the introduction of new practice directives with effect from 25 July 2011 has had a considerable impact.


17.1 The aforesaid practice directives only provide for a fee agreement in terms of the Contingency Fees Act and not for common law contingency fee agreements. As the majority of agreements between attorneys and their clients in third party matters appear to be common law contingency fee agreements, attorneys are faced with an array of practical difficulties in dealing with the matters and finalising them speedily in the best interest of the clients.


17.2 It is submitted that in the light of the impracticality arising from the Contingency Fees Act and the need for a workable alternative, common law contingency fee agreements may validly be concluded within the stated recognised parameters”.


18.On the 20 February 2014, the Constitutional Court, delivering judgment in an appeal against the decision of the North Gauteng High Court which had held in the de la Guerre and SAAPIL matters that common-law contingency to be invalid, stated as follows and is hereto attached as Annexure “RBA11”;

Annexure RBA11 - Constitutional Court Judgment in the de la Guerre and SAAPIL matter - Click here to read


18.1“uncertainty reigned in the attorneys’ profession about the correct legal position in relation to contingency fees;


18.2could these fees be charged only under the Act, or also outside its provisions?


18.3RBP was one of the firms which charged more than allowed for in the Act, as the rules of its professional association allowed”.


19.It is therefore submitted that there can be no proper basis for criticizing or penalizing any attorney for contracting with a client to act on contingency outside the provisions of the Contingency Fees Act, prior to the date on which the Constitutional Court finally ruled on the issue.


20.Certainly it could never be said that members of the LSNP were in any way acting unprofessionally by doing so, or overreaching clients by complying with their Council’s rulings, which were reaffirmed year after year for more than a decade, during which the Council expressed consistent support for common-law contingency fee agreements.


21.Even van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town, the attorney Discovery used throughout its vendetta against Ronald and RBP Inc. in an article published by him in De Rebus – the South African attorneys journal – noted as follows” for many contingency fee agreements have been a matter of contention, and the questionable existence of common law contingency fee agreements after the enactment of the contingency fees act, in particular, has led to much confusion.


22.Indeed van Niekerk is entirely correct in finally acknowledging what he refers to as much confusion but in reality was a situation where the governmental regulatory bodies representing more than 70% of all attorneys practising in South Africa were of the firm opinion that common law fee agreements were valid and permissible, that as recently as February 2011 the Cape Law Society of whose Council van Niekerk was a member resolved to adopt the same approach as the Law Societies of the Northern Provinces and the Law Societies of the Northern Provinces and the Law Societies of the Free State: thereby effectively bringing the percentage of attorneys in South Africa whose governing bodies were of the view that common law contingency fee agreements were valid and permissible to over 90%.


The South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (SAAPIL) which at the time comprised of most attorneys throughout South Africa, representing victims of all forms of trauma and medical negligence was made aware from its members throughout South Africa that all forms of personal injury and medical negligence litigation was conducted exclusively by way of common law percentage fee agreements.


23.For anyone to seriously suggest that any attorney who contracted with a client, could in any way be guilty of theft or fraud simply because a civil court held – more than a decade after such fee agreements were permitted, promoted and encouraged by the Law Societies, is absurd, malicious, and wholly at odds with the long established principle mens rea being an essential element of any common law crime.

It would also have the bizarre result of many thousands of attorneys suddenly becoming thieves and the Councillors of the three law societies which had adopted the view that common law fee agreements were valid, also suddenly becoming accessories to theft.


24.Perhaps the most enlightening of all the Law Society’s actions in support of common-law percentage contingency fee agreements, is the content of its letter to the then Deputy Judge President of the North Gauteng High Court on 12 October 2011, attached hereto as Annexure “RBA12”.

Annexure RBA12 Letter from the Law Society to the then Deputy Judge President - Click here to read


24.1 The letter in question attached a proposed model common-law contingency fee agreement, and also noted the following:


24.2 that attorneys could properly charge more than 25% of monies recovered subject to the guidelines set out in such letter, specifically, “For example although no minimum or maximum percentage is prescribed and given that attorneys and their clients are free to negotiate a contract in the same way as any other contract between competent parties, we indicated to our members that should the 25% cap referred to in the Act, be exceeded, it will have to be justified, having regard to the various aspects which will have to be considered. This will inter alia include the complexity of the matter, the overhead cost structure of the firm, the extent of the disbursements to be covered by the attorney, the anticipated period that the attorney would have to carry such disbursements to be covered by the attorney, the anticipated period that the attorney would have to carry such disbursements and wait for payment of fees, as well as other criteria such as those referred to in Rule 80 of the Law Society’s rules”.


A copy of the letter referred to above is attached in the above annexure “RBA12”.


25. With regard to the Price Waterhouse Case, all three Counsel from the Law Society secured opinions were ad idem that Southwood J’s remarks were obiter. The Law Society chose to rely on the opinion of Labuschagne SC. Further it appears that Southwood J may have had second thoughts if one has regard to his statements in the Mnisi case as commented on in a paper by Professor Magda Slabbert – “The Judicial Approach to Contingency Fee Agreements” published in 2013 (78)(THRHR). The author considers and refers to the obiter by Southwood AJA in the Price Waterhouse Coopers Case, where the learned judge adopted a very firm approach in stating inter alia that:
“Any Contingency Fee agreement between such parties which is not covered by the Act is therefore illegal” Attached as Annexure “RBA13”.

Annexure RBA13 The Judicial Approach to Contingency Fees - A paper by Professor Magda Slabbert - Click here to read


She however notes that when the learned Judge had occasion to consider an agreement between Attorney Mnisi and his client, which was clearly not in compliance with the Contingency Fees Act and was essentially a common law contingency fee agreement, the honourable judge did not hold the agreement invalid, but as stated by the Author “ Regarding the terms of the contingency fees agreement, it is respectfully submitted that Southwood J appeared somewhat ambivalent in his finding that the agreement was “clearly not covered” by the (Contingency Fees ) Act and the Agreement appears to be illegal” This stands in stark contrast to the learned judges earlier dictum, to which he made reference, in the Price Waterhouse Case that any contingency fee agreement between such parties which is not covered by the Act is therefore illegal” This dictum suggests that invalidity is an unavoidable consequence of a finding that a contingency fee agreement does not comply with the Act. Yet, almost six years later, in Mnisi, Southwood J was only prepared to for a prima facie view that the contingency fee agreement was invalid, despite stating that it was “clearly not covered by the Act”. Instead of making an order declaring the agreement invalid, the Judge directed the Registrar to refer the matter to the President of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (LSNP) to investigate, inter alia the validity of the contingency fee agreement and Mnisi’s failure to file the affidavit prescribed by section 4 of the Act”.

"Fake News Article by Sally Rawsthorne of the Sydney Herald - Sun"

IMG 5822

Response to Sydney Morning Herald Article

Discovery which has now commenced doing business in Sydney and Melbourne, and as has been the case with the Citizen, Sunday Times and the Jewish Report, which sadly reflect what has become of South Africa’s once world class media (Business Day excluded) ,has successfully, directly or indirectly colluded with the Sally Rawsthorne employed by Sydney Morning Herald which is part of the Fairfax Group, and which regularly features as a defendant in defamation actions; to parrot the ongoing lies published since January 2014 by Discovery's hired media assassin Beamish and his cronies including Ant Katz of the Jewish Report, Graeme Hosken of the Sunday Times and Laura du Preez.

Social media connections with Discovery’s gang in South Africa,  including Beamish, Hosken, Discovery's Jeffrey Katz, taken together with the fact that Katz tweeted Rawsthornes malicious article almost simultaneously as she did, follows her on twitter, and that she follows Sunday Times journalist Graeme Hosken, graphically illustrates the collusion involved. Click here to view the tweets

Rawsthorne clearly lacks any sense of decency. She arrived unannounced at the door of Ronald’s home early Friday morning 3rd August 2018, and rang the doorbell incessantly until Ronald came downstairs, and without opening the door he enquired who was there. Rawsthorne responded that she was from the Sydney Morning Herald and that she wished to interview him concerning the South African Interpol Red Notices. Ronald partly openend the door whilst still in his pyjamas and told Rawsthorne that he had been awake all night due to the pain caused by a fractured ankle, apologised for his appearance and told Rawsthorne that he would be happy to speak with her if she just wait ten to fifteen minutes for him to shower and dresss.

Whilst this interchange took place Rawsthorne or her photographer Jani Barrett who had accompanied her, surreptitiously took a photo of Ronald in his pyjamas, but never disclosed this , and went through the charade of persuading Ronald and Darren to agree to what was probably at least twenty photographs in twenty poses, because, as Rawsthorne put it, "we want our readers to see how you and Darren are living and the stress you are under".

What kind of people are they?

During the interview Ronald took Rawsthorne through the history of Discovery's seven year vendetta against Ronald and Darren and the Practice of RBP Inc., and which commenced after Ronald and Darren in the course of defending Practice clients, Mark and Jody Bellon stumbled upon Discovery's decades of institutionalised defrauding of its members who had sustained injuries during road accidents.

Ronald went on to tell Rawsthorne that the Council of the Law Society upon being informed by Ronald at its January 2011 monthly meeting what he had ascertained concerning Discovery, was told by those of its councillors who conducted Plaintiff Personal Injury Practices, that they and their clients had experienced similar unlawful threats and demands. The Council of the  Law Society then resolved to send an advisory to its 16 000 members warning them to be vigilant in protecting their clients interests against unlawful demands and threats made of them and their clients by any medical aid. Click here to view the 1st LSNP Advisory sent out to members dated 1 February 2011 and Click here to read the Law Society's 2nd advisory sent to members dated 15 April 2011

Ronald informed Rawsthorne, and on the same day mailed her these advisories, as also a threatening letter which Katz had sent to the Law Society Click here to view letter threatening to sue it.

On the last page of his second letter Katz disclosed the true reason for his and his employers anger and which was that after the Law Society had sent its advisories to its members, Discovery’s illegal rake off extorted from those of its members who had sustained injuries in road accidents, abruptly dwindled to 25% of the hundreds of millions it had for decades duressed out of its vulnerable members.

Ronald explained to Rawsthorne that given that Katz was receiving millions of rands in commission based on the hundreds of millions extorted by him and his staff from their helpless victims, one could understand why Katz and his employers – the obscenely wealthy directors of Discovery would endorse the repeated threat publically made by Katz, that as revenge for Ronald and Darren(doing what lawyers are supposed to do in fearlessly defending their clients), inadvertantly exposing his and Discovery's fraudulent and illegal conduct,he/Discovery threatened that  “no matter what it takes, no matter what its costs, we will destroy you all”.

For reasons only known to Rawsthorne, and most likely so as to deflect readers attention from the real reason for Discovery's having waged war against Ronald, Darren and their Practice, rambled on about a comment Ronald had made to her, and not in the words used by him when Ronald explained to her why there was a strong political agenda behind certain government interests which had clearly facililtated the collusion between Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk and other partners of Edward Nathan being able to improperly influence the National Prosecuting Authority, and a senior member fo the Hawks.

That was on account of the attorneys profession having elected Ronald to lead the professions opposition to decades of ongoing efforts by successive minsters of transport, and CEO’s of the Road Accident Fund to try remove the legal profession from playing any meaningful role within the Road Accident Fund Compensation Scheme, and thereby reduce the levels of compensation available, to road accident victims most of whom to be poor persons of colour, to neglible levels.

Further that Ronald had been successful together with a number of other dedicated attorneys in frustrating the South African Governments efforts to plunder the billions of rands in the road accident fund, as has been the case in every other South African parastal/organisation including Eskom (The electricity supply commission) South African Airways and many others.

Ronald informed Rawsthorne that Katz had threatened RBP director Stephen Bezuidenhout that he/Discovery would "destroy you all", and that Bezuidenhout had deposed to an affidavit filed in court Click here to read affidavit deposed to by Stephen Bezuidenhout, and that Katz had uttered the identical threat to senior advocate Nazeer Cassim S.C in a matter where Mr Cassim represented the firm, and that advocate Cassim had reported the threat to Ronald, and in an email offered to testify in respect thereof .Click here to view email by Advocate Cassim S.C.

Ronald forwarded Rawsthorne a copy of Bezuidenhouts affidavit and a copy of Cassims email, and referred specifically in a mail addressed to her and which is available for reading at the foot of this comment, but of course Rawsthorne had obviously been instructed not to mention Discovery or anything negative about it, and only coyly referred to an "Insurers operatives", but had no difficulty in continuously defaming Ronald and Darren by way of allegations allegedly made by a former RBP client, which she did not put to Ronald or Darren for their response, as she oobviously preferred not having to put the response which would have been that neither of them had dealt with that matter, were aware of what had transpired once that deceased clients wife had been touted by Discovery proxy Anthony Millar, and between the two of the concocted a perjured affidavit.

Ronald referred her to the way in which Discovery’s media assassin Tony Beamish, had together with Discovery proxy Attorney Anthony Millar recruited Cora van der Merwe, a 50 year old woman whom Ronald had agreed to employ as a candidate attorney, notwithstanding her having had what may be politely referred to as a colourful past; to steal material from the Practice relating to its clients, its files, and even directors personal documents including will and family trust deeds for them.

Ronald went on to inform Rawsthorne that van der Merwe had been exposed by South Africa’s renowned forensic investigation Mr Paul O’Sullivan, and that she had made a full confession to him and his assistant Ms Melissa Naidu, during an interview with her at the Practices offices, that she had been recruited by Beamish to steal RBP Practice, client and directors personal information off the Practices server for Beamish and Millar.Click here to read Mr. O'Sullivans affidavit in this regard

Ronald also told Rawsthorne about Pauls fearless anti-corruption campaigns in South Africa, that Paul had apparently spent time in the employ of the United Kingdom Intelligence Agency MI-6, and had exposed South Africa’s then commissioner of Police and head of Interpol for the corrupt scoundrel that he was, which led to his being sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.

She then went on using wording clearly intended to depict Ronald as some sort of crackpot, when she maliciously and falsely stated “he detailed the plot of the fake kidnapping of a former spy of the USSR, infiltrated into his law firm... Erin Brockovitch and MI6.

See below where Rawsthornes dishonesty and lack of any semblance of journalistic ethics are exposed.

The Transcript of Ronald’s recording of the interview below demonstrates exactly how contrived and misleading Rawsthornes articles have been, how she scrupulously protects Discovery and its proxies, and deliberately fails to mention any of the true facts which would provide readers with an understanding of how and why Ronald and Darren have been victimised for defending Practice clients, speaking truth to power and that they have done nothing whatsoever wrong.

Ronald detailed how Discovery’s attorneys Messrs Edward Nathan had hijacked the council of the Law Society on behalf of its biggest client Discovery, when unrelenting efforts by its attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town to harass and manipulate the Law Society into serving as his and his client’s pawn had failed.

Ronald forwarded Rawsthorne three affidavits deposed to by successive Law Society Presidents fingering Discovery and its attorney George van Niekerk of using former RBP client Mr Graham and his wife as pawns, in what in reality were court applications in which, “the relief (orders), provided for in the Notice of Motion (i.e. the Court Application), is essentially not sought by the Grahams, but by van Niekerk and/or Discovery, on whose behalf van Niekerk acts. It is abundantly clear that the Applicants (the Grahams) play a secondary role in these proceedings)”.

Ronald also forwarded Rawsthorne extracts from an explosive affidavit prepared by the Law Society’s attorneys on its behalf, describing in detail the collusion between Millar, Beamish and van Niekerk in the vendetta and the malicious attacks on RBP’s law society complaint contingency fee agreements.

Ronald also informed Rawsthorne of the attempt which was made by the newly appointed Discovery controlled council in November 2015, to sanitise that affidavit by removing its most incriminating paragraph 14. Click here to read the original paragraph 14. However because the rest of the affidavit was replete with numerous and detailed exposures of the corrupt activities of Millar, Beamish and van Niekerk; the Discovery puppet Law Society Council discarded that affidavit entirely and replaced it with one tailored to suite Discovery’s agenda to destroy Ronald, Darren and their Practice.

Whereas the previous independent Law Society Council prior to its hijacking by Discovery’s attorneys Edward Nathan, had stood for honesty and principle, that was no longer the case, and effectively the puppet council from November 2015, became little more than an extension of Discovery’s firm of attorneys.

Notwithstanding all this and having received all relevant documents Rawsthorne simply ignored them all, as that would hardly suite her agenda and that of those whose interests she was serving. Click here to read Millar's letter to the Law Society with a requisition compelling the Law Society to hold a special meeting of its members, and with every signature on that requisition being exclusively that of Discovery's Katz, his proxy Millar and every partner of Discovery’s attorneys Edward Nathan. Click here to view a selection of quotes from the three affidavits filed in court by the Law Society fingering Discovery and accusing van Niekerk and the grahams of perjury. Click here to view the sanitized paragraph 14 from the discarded Law Society affidavit, more substantial extracts from the discarded affidavit may be viewed on this website.

Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz who received millions in commissions on the hundreds of millions of rands he and his staff illegally and immorally extorted out of injured and helpless members of Discovery captive medical aid scheme, who had sustained injuries in road accidents, became enraged at the prospect of his ill-gotten gains being exposed, and abruptly terminated, consequent upon Ronald and Darren’s exposure of his and his employers deceitful and fraudulent conduct.

Any journalist worthy of the title would have afforded Ronald and Darren an opportunity of responding to any third party allegations which they intended publishing, but of course given Rawsthorne’s clear agenda, and clearly pursued in collusion with Discovery’s Beamish and Hosken, she deliberately did not do so, but nevertheless published false allegations by the wife of since deceased RBP client, Mark Chetty and in the context of the quote she attributes to Sandy Chetty, it is highly unlikely that Rawsthorne interviewed this woman, but rather simply regurgitated what had been published by her colluder Hosken in the Sunday Times, and who had also not afforded Ronald or Darren via their attorney an opportunity of commenting on Sandy Chetty’s allegations.

Although neither Ronald or Darren represented Mark Chetty, whose extremely difficult claim (it turned out he was drunk at the time of the accident and probably caused same),Sandy Chetty is quoted as stating that “ the firm’s partners enriched themselves off our pain and suffering”. “They dragged everything out, raising the costs. We were told by the RAF [Road Accident Fund] we would get 8 million rand, but when we got to court the Bobroffs told us they had signed the settlement for 4.2 million rand,”.

Her late husband’s claim, as she was well aware was attended to by an RBP employed lawyer together with advocates Zubair Khan and Ian Zidel SC whose photographs appear below below, and who together achieved an outstanding result for the late Mark Chetty, and who together with his wife were ecstatic at the outcome of the claim (and understandably so as Chetty having driven drunk, may well have been the cause of the accident) and the fee charged to him in terms of the Practices Contingency Fees Act Agreement.

Z Khan ian zidel

Zubair Khan                                                                 Ian Zidel SC

Rawsthorne states that “two other former staff members, Bernadine van Wyk and Cora van der Merwe, claim the Bobroffs overcharged clients and breached their legal bookkeeping obligations”, but she did not put allegations attributable to van Wyk and van der Merwe to Ronald or Darren so that they could comment on or rebut same, yet she remained coyly silent about van Wyk having been convicted on ten counts of fraud by false pretences, having being imprisoned, having being bribed by Discovery through its proxy attorney Anthony Millar to deliberately set up the Practice for an audit by the South African Revenue Services, after she had effected certain dodgy entries in the Practices books of account on the one hand, and ignored instructions to effect required entries in such books, as also that van Wyk had stolen R1.3million rand from attorney Schalk de Bruyn by whom she was previously employed, nor that van Wyk had confided much of this to the Practices receptionist Ms Liza Bouwer, and whose affidavit describing this had been forwarded to Rawsthorne, who simply ignored this all.

Similarly whilst Rawsthorne was happy to refer to Cora van der Merwe and van Wyks claim that “the Bobroffs overcharged clients and breached their legal bookkeeping obligations” she kept silent about van der Merwes confession to forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan Click here to read affidavit by Forensic Investigator Paul O'Sullivan (of her recruitment by Beamish and theft of extensive amount of material off RBP's Practice server, her fabricated allegations of kidnapping against O’Sullivan and his assistant – which was thrown out by the court (Click here to read the judgment aquitting Paul O'Sullivan) and in which the Magistrate labelled van der Merwe as an evasive liar, and her theft for Beamish and Millar of RBP Practice, client and directors material as “malicious and unlawful”; despite Ronald having fully informed Rawsthorne of these facts and forwarding her O'Sullivans affidavit and the judgment acquitting O'Sullivan.

Ronald informed Rawsthorne that;

  • Cora van der Merwe was initially fiercely loyal to the Practice, and had taken great exception to the way in which Discovery proxy Millar and Discovery’s Katz were receiving extensive and wholly one sided publicity from Beamish via publication of Beamish’s publications in Moneyweb, a shabby failing internet publication run by Ryk van Niekerk, believed to be related to Discovery attorney George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town.
  • Cora's report detailed the fraudulent and fictitious attendances claimed for by Millar in his bill of costs, and in which he sought payment from Mr Mashiloane of hundreds of thousands of rands, and in a matter where one of Millar’s unqualified staff members recovered a measly R37 000.00 (AUD $3 700) compensation for Millar’s hapless victim. Click here to view report and letter sent to attorney Anthony Berlowitz as also her Afrikaans email to Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk Click here to read as also the English translation of this email Click here to read
  • Cora had been instructed by attorney Anthony Berlowitz in her capacity as a legal cost consultant, and prior to her being employed by RBP Inc., to oppose an outrageous account - bill of costs submitted by Discovery Proxy Attorney Millar, for payment by one of his touted and impoverished black clients Mr A Mashiloane.
  • Van der Merwe had confided to Ronald, after he had called her in to his office for a pep talk , after she had been pressurised by the Practices bookkeeper with regards to various procedural irregularities and excessive sick leave;
  • She "wanted to open her heart" to him and that during the recording of the interview van der Merwe stated:
  • She had been contacted by Discovery hired media assassin Beamish who had sought to ingratiate himself with her by way of ongoing social media exchanges and telephone calls, and which she clearly understood to be intended to recruit her as Beamish's spy in the Practice.
  • That she would furnish Ronald with dozens of Whatapps she had exchanged with Beamish via her two cell/mobile phones as also her laptop that she had exchanged with Beamish, as well as a number of emails which Beamish had copied to her, which she understood it to be an attempt by Beamish to impress her as by demonstrating his connections with Judge Bertelsmann and others in high places.Click here to view email exchange from Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann to Tony Beamish. (It therefore came as no surprise that as a reward for van der Merwe stealing Practice, client and directors personal information off the Practices server for Beamish and Millar, a marketing initiative for van der Merwe's newly established buisness as a cost consultant - i.e. to prepare bills of costs on behalf of attorneys clients, and to oppose bills of costs against such clients, Discovery arranged and funded and indaba (seminar) on legal costs, and in which Bertlesmann, Millar and Beamish were promoted as presenters of such seminar.Click here to read the advertising material
  • That Beamish had told her that he owned a villa in the South of France, and that he regularly entertained one of South Africa’s most senior judges - Eberhard Bertelsmann(a reformed alcoholic and drug addict) , for a number of weeks annually together with his whole family at Beamish's villa in the South of France, and that Bertelsmann was assisting Beamish to facilitate his role in Discovery’s ongoing vendetta against RBP Inc. Ronald and Darren.
  • She knew how to "handle" Beamish so as to lead him to believe that she had been captured by him, and was ready and available to spy on the affairs of the Practice for him, because she had many years previously been employed by the South African Navy, and trained in counter espionage.
  • That she had been sent to a Russian University to study allied topics.

So as to provide Rawsthorne with insight to van der Merwe’s perverse, and to put it plainly evil character, Ronald detailed how after van der Merwe had been dismissed from the Practice, she had photo shopped a picture of Darren and his secretary Joan Berger from the firm’s website, inserted a photo of Joan’s baby in between Joan and Darren and emailed that fabricated photo bearing the message "you can ask Joan how much money Darren did gave (sic) her to have a baby and why" ,to Darren’s wife and to Joan’s husband in an attempt to ruin their marriages.

Rawsthorne was emailed a copy of an application made to court for a protection order against van der Merwe (Darren brought a similar application) resulting in an order being made against Cora.Click here to read the application for a protection order by Joan Burger, Darren's secretary

Rawsthorne whilst publishing van der Merwe’s malicious allegations against Ronald and Darren deliberately concealed this information. 

This is not the first protection order obtained against Cora as her ex husband was forced to obtain one on account of Cora arriving at his home and accosting him and his wife, as also trashing the premises. 

Rawsthornes allegations that Ronald “ said Ms.van der Merwe was a spy in the cold war” is a fiction of Rawsthornes malicious imagination, as is her catchy phrase in the print version “spies, lies and St.Ives” and likewise her fabrication that Ronald had said that van der Merwe was “ a former spy from the USSR, who had infiltrated his law firm”.

As is now apparent Rawsthorne was intent on parroting the false drivel written by Graeme Hosken in South Africa’s dwindling publication Sunday Times, and amusingly which Hosken had lifted almost word for word from an article in the Jewish Report communal newspaper, allegedly written by Tali Feinberg, but according to reliable sources, by Beamish.

As will be noted from a screenshot Click here to view South African Jewish Reports contact us page taken off the Jewish reports website, its controlling board includes Shaun Matisonn - a director and principal officer of Discovery, and others known to be closely associated in one way or another with Discovery's directors, Gore, Schwartzberg, Broomberg and co.

If Rawsthorne or Hosken had sought comment on the perjured allegations by former RBP bookkeeper and Discovery recruit Bernadine van Wyk, aka Jansen van Rensburg, aka Burgers, they would have been told:

That van Wyk had been recruited by way of a bribe offered to her by Millar on behalf of Discovery and which included payment of R1 million, employment by Discovery, and which was dependant on her stealing the entire contents of the Practices computer server and containing the Practices entire bookkeeping system, incorporating client ledgers, the Practice’s general business ledgers, directors personal financial information and everything else relating to the Practice and its clients, and making same available to Millar, Discovery’s hired media assassin Beamish, and Discovery’s attorney George van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town. As will be noted in the affidavit by RBP receptionist Ms.Liza Bouwer to whom van Wyk had confided what she was up to, it was clear the plot was that van Wyk should set up the Practice of RBP Inc. by way of dodgy bookkeeping entries, thereafter tipoff SARS which would lead to an audit, which van Wyk then confidently predicted to Lisa that the Practices directors would be arrested, and the firm being closed down in August 2012 at the time of the SARS audit.Affidavit by RBP Receptionist Ms.Liza Bouwer - click here to view

Rawsthornes dishonesty becomes almost embarrassingly clear where she reports “he (Ronald) said Mrs van der Merwe was a spy in the cold war” and earlier on in her article that Ronald detailed “a plot involving the fake kidnapping of a former spy from the USSR who infiltrated his law firm … Erin Brockovitch and MI-6”.

During Ronald’s explanation to Rawsthorne about the background to the Law Society’s decision to permit its members to utilise American style no win – no fee percentage fee agreements, whereby the attorneys would receive a percentage of the damages recovered for a client, Ronald told her that consequent upon the screening of American movies in South Africa in the late 1990’s featuring court cases in which attorneys were seen to be charging such fees, and that the movie dealing with a class action by the inhabitants of a small American town whose water supply had been poisoned by an upstream industrial plant, and which featured a Para legal, Erin Brockovitch as the star of the film, and in which her employers percentage contingency fee agreements had featured prominently, made a strong impact on South African viewers, and led to increasing requests by personal injury victims to their attorneys to act on the same basis. This is in fact referred to in detail in a 49 page affidavit filed by the Law Society in the landmark de la Guerre case, and in which the Law Society fiercely defended its stance that such agreements were lawful and valid in South Africa.

Rawsthornes reference to Brockovitch in the context of the USSR etcetera, was to somehow try and conjure up an image in the reader’s mind that Ronald had as it were, lost the plot.

The reference to MI-6 was in the context of Ronald relating to Rawsthorne Investigator Paul O’Sullivan’s background and credentials, which he understood to have included service with MI-6.

At no stage did van der Merwe say that she was or had been a KGB spy and at no stage did Ronald tell Rawsthorne that this was the case, although Rawsthorne falsely reported this to be so. Click here to view email to Ms Lizanne van Staden with whom van der Merwe shared an office and in which she berates Lizanne for telling Ronald that she had studied at a Russian University. 

Notwithstanding that Ronald had told Rawsthorne what van der Merwe had done, and as promised he emailed her an affidavit by Paul O’Sullivan in which Paul describes how van der Merwe after initially denying the allegations against her, eventually confessed in full when confronted with the scores of emails to which was attached material which she had stolen of RBP’s computer server and forwarded to Beamish.

Given corrupt and deceitful tactics engaged in by other Discovery media proxies in the past, Ronald told Rawsthorne after she had stated that she would be recording the interview, that she would do likewise, and the transcription will be made available on this site as soon as it is received.

Website viewers who take the time to read the transcript of the recording will soon realise how Rawsthorne deliberately concealed all important third party facts and material, including documents and affidavits by various presidents of the Law Society, correspondence from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, and categorical rebuttals of any misappropriation or theft of client trust funds in the written report furnished on the 16th November 2016 by the court appointed Curator (receiver) to RBP Inc., after Ronald and Darren were forced to flee South Africa for fear of their lives, consequent upon ongoing threats to seriously harm them, and which threats continue now even in Sydney.

In particular Rawsthorne deliberately failed to even make reference to the explosive and exculpatory finding by the curator, notwithstanding that it had been mailed to her Click here to read the relevant extracts from the Curators report.

The curators report is also on Ronalds website bobroffronald.com, and on Bobroffinfo.com, and which she stated she had read and in which the curator staed the following:

“Detailed accurate reconciled records have been maintained and is available on request. On 10 October 2016 a month end and a year ending September 2016 report was compiled and all the balances were in place. A system integrity check was also performed and all was found to be in order” i.e. The Practices Trust account balances to the cent. i.e. if any money had been stolen/misappropriated from money received on behalf of clients, the trust account would not have balanced and there would have been a shortfall to the extent of any misappropriation.

“As at 4 November 2016 the firm has trust liabilities in the amount of R13,130,113-97 and trust assets in the amount of R13,130,064-94. The shortfall in the amount of R47-03 relates to VAT on bank charges which is being rectified”.

It is therefore clear that no money whatsoever, let alone the absurd allegation of an amount exceeding R1 billion and in respect of ill-gotten gains (stolen money) had been misappropriated, whereas in fact not a cent is missing.

" No claims have been lodged with the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, and the Attorneys Fidelity Fund is being kept appraised of the attendances made by the curator and his department, and the status of the winding up of the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Incorporated Attorneys".

The Attorneys Fidelity Fund is a fund set up by the Attorneys profession to reimburse clients whose attorneys have stolen/misappropriated the client’s funds. Click here to read the letter from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund

That the curator also reported, and the Fidelity Fund confirmed again almost a year later in 2017, that not a single one of the Practices thousands of former clients had made any allegations of theft or lodged any claims against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund.Click here to read the letter from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund

Although Rawsthorne was taken through the full background to the Law Society’s permitting, promoting and encouraging its 16 000 members to charge Common Law Contingency Percentage Fee Agreements and:

That it was therefore unfair and inexplicable why the court which struck Ronald and Darren off the roll of attorneys, did so largely due to a report by a Law Society employed inspector to the effect that to a large extent because the Practice utilised such agreements, (also that the court had )denied them an opportunity of a short postponement within which to file a report by a forensic auditor, and of filing opposing affidavits which would have clearly demonstrated that there was no truth or merit in the allegations made against them.

That the Law Society had filed a 49 page affidavit in the landmark case of de la Guerre , in which RBP's law society compliant common law percentage contingency fee agreement, had been attacked by Millar, on behalf of de la Guerre who had been touted for him by Discovery’s Katz; and in which the Law Society vigorously and staunchly defended its stance in permitting, promoting and encouraging its members use of American style common law percentage - no win - no fee - fee agreements. Click here to read the most relevant portions of that affidavit;

Rawsthorne remained silent about all the above material facts.

Ronald sent Rawsthorne an explanatory email, together with a number of important documents attached, as also the documents referred to below, and all of which were completely ignore by her. A copy of letter and all attachments appear below and each item may be clicked to view.

1. Letter to Sally Rawsthorne dated 3 August 2018 - click here to read

2. James Styan article entitled "Expose Unsettling Discovery" click here to view

3. David Gleason article entitled "Torque: Accusations Fly in Medical Aid Case" click here to view

4. Letter of complaint about Discovery's Katz sent to the Law Society on the 30 July 2015 - click here to read

5. Letter from Cora van der Merwe to Ryk van Niekerk, editor of Moneyweb regarding the Mashiloane report - click here to view

6. Translation of letter sent by Cora van der Merwe to Ryk van Niekerk , editor of Moneyweb - click here to view

7. Report from Cora van der Merwe on A.Mashiloane sent to attorney Berlowitz - click here to read

8. Cora van der Merwes tweet - click here to view

9. Index of Tweets - click here to view

10. Law Society Affidavit fingering Discovery - click here to read

11. Official criminal record of Bernadine van Wyk - click here to view

12. Fee agreement of de la Guerre and Norman Berger and Partners - click here to view

13. Letter of complaint regarding Katz and sent to the Law Society on the 30th July 2015 - click here to view

 14. Affidavit by RBP receptionist Ms.Liza Bouwer - click here to read

15. Letter from Katz to Law Society President Tony Thobane threatening legal action - click here to view

16. Letter to Law Society requesting a special meeting of members to be held and the requisition - click here to view

17. Opinion by Adv J Erasmus on Contingency Fees - click here to view

18. Paul Mullons Protection order - click here to view 

A further list of vital documents and emails sent by Ronald to Rawsthorne, and simply ignored by her appear below and may be viewed by clicking each item.

1. Email from Ronald Bobroff to Sally Rawsthorne dated 2.8.18 Subject Endless tragic stories of how this corrupt bully treats its  suffering members.

2. Email from Ronald Bobroff to Sally Rawsthorne dated 2.8.18 subject Cora Beamish's Pawn.

3. Email from Ronald Bobroff to Sally Rawsthorne dated 3.8.18 subject Elaines 40 years of service to charity.

4. Email from Ronald Bobroff to Sally Rawsthorne dated 3.8.18 Subject Moneyweb - Bobroffs - 2 July 2018Click here to read the contents of the letter.

5. Email from Darren Bobroff to Sally Rawsthorne dated 3.8.18 Subject Please retweet Ryk.

6. Email from Darren Bobroff to Sally Rawsthorne dated 3.8.18 Subject Tali FinebergClick here to read the content of the letter sent to Tali Feinberg of the Jewish Report.

Perhaps the clearest indication of the collusion between Rawsthorne and Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz, his media assassin Beamish and accomplice Graeme Hosken of the Sunday Times appears from them all following each other on twitter, and Katz tweeting Rawsthorne’s article within minutes of her doing so, Click here to view the tweet

The question may rightly be asked how and why at this particular time and day would these corrupt conspirators be following each other and tweeting about Rawsthornes obligingly delivering the goods, and obviously as will be noted in Ronald’s messages and emails to Rawsthorne deliberately as boasted by Katz served as a “special birthday present for Ronald’s birthday” which is on the 7th August.

What words are there to describe such persons, and does Rawsthorne have no shame or conscience ?

  

APPARENT COLLUSION BETWEEN DISCOVERY'S ATTORNEY GEORGE VAN NIEKERK OF ENS CAPE TOWN AND THE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY

AUGUST 2017

We have been informed by extremely reliable sources that Discovery's attorney George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan, has been colluding with the National Prosecuting Authority in attempting to concoct trumped up allegations against Ronald and Darren Bobroff.

Bizarrely these include the allegation that because the Practice of Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc., in common with 74% of all the Law Society's members agreed to assist clients in terms of common law contingency fee agreements, the fees chearged in terms thereof of between 25-30% plus VAT, in accordance with Law Society rulings, in good faith and in the genuine belief that such agreements which were permitted and promoted by the Law Society, suddenly became theft and fraud because a Civil Court finally ruled, that such agreements were invalid in 2014.

The fact that these absurd allegations have only been against Darren and Ronald, and not a single other of the 20 000 plus attorneys who entered into millions * of such agreements for more than a decade, creates an obvious inference as to what is really going on. * Page 17 paragraph 7.12.4 "Some two hundred thousand claims are lodged against the Road Accident Fund annually, primarily by attorneys and that from 1999 to date in excess of one million claims would have been lodged by attorneys on behalf of their clients".

The wild allegations by the NPA that lawful after tax money which emanated from various lawful sources, and held in offshore accounts by Ronald and Darren are the proceeds of crime, are based on a series of contrived fictions.

The NPA had to find some formula to link the US Dollar values of the offshore funds to fees charged by RBP Inc. Given that the Practices trust account was correctly reported by the court appointed curator to have balanced to the cent i.e. no client funds misappropriated/stolen, and that the curator further reported that not a single one of the Practices thousands of former clients had lodged any claims of theft against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, The National Prosecuting Authority had a problem because no monies whatsoever were misappropriated or stolen from clients by RBP Inc.'s directors Stephen Bezuidenhout and Ronald and Darren Bobroff.

So the NPA's P.Biseswaar together with the RAF's Marius Werner obviously decided that they would have to somehow concoct a scenario, no matter how absurd that some of the money which the RAF  had paid to RBP Inc. in respect of client settlements was stolen, and of course only by Ronald and Darren and not Bezuidnhout, who dealt with far more clients than Darren did and that such amount should then equal in rands the US dollar amount of Ronald and Darrens offshore funds in Israel.

Undettered by the fact that there was no theft whatsoever, they must have by trial and error, and probably assisted by one of the RAF's actuaries worked out that if they took 10% of all the money paid  to the Practice by the RAF in respect of client settlements from December 2006 up to March 2016 i.e. 10% of R96 911 828.911 = R9 691 181.89, and only at a specific time, on a specific day given that the exchange rate fluctuates from minute to minute, they had a bingo moment when the figure euqalled the dollar amount.

Their next challenge was how to somehow concoct a basis on which to allege that the amount R96 911 828.91 had been stolen from RBP clients, and of course again only by Ronald and Darren. Astonishingly what is supposed to be South Africa's "elite" criminal investigation unit - the Hawks , and its National Prosecuting Authority embarrassingly stated that Ronald and Darren had overcharged - unnamed clients, in respect of unnamed settlement or judgement amounts, a blanket 10% of the total amounts paid to the Practice by the RAF during the period December 2006 - March 2016 of R96 911 828.91.

Minor details such as the fact that RBP 25% shareholder Bezuidenhout would have received 25% of the fictitious 10% overcharge , that the overcharged fees would have been used to cover the Practices 30 - 40% annual overheads, thet VAT of 14% would have to have been paid, that company tax of 38% would have to have been paid and so on; were conveniently ignored.

Numerous senior and experienced lawyers including retired judges who had read the NPA's preservation (freezing) application have expressed their concern that a High Court Judge should have been prepared to grant the NPZ the preservation/freezing order based on such obvious nonsense, and to add insult to injury to have done so ex parte i.e. without Ronald or Darren being afforded an opportunity of filing affidavits exposing the NPA's application on the grounds on which it was based, as embarrassing and wholly without merit!.

The only response in Biseswaars replying affidavit was that the reference to the NPA's complete failure to have regard to all the deductions which should have been made off the concoted theft amount of R96 911 828.91, was that it was "creative" accounting. 

Further it is alleged that "Ronald and Darren" convinced clients to enter into multiple fee agreements so as to defraud clients, and avoid income tax and a string of other absurd allegations. Of course this conveniently ignores the fact that the Law Society advised its members to enter into alternative fallback agreements, in case a court should ever rule that common law fee agreements were invalid. Click here to read the Law Society's first advisory dated 1 February 2011as also the 2nd advisory dated 15 April 2011.Click here to read the letter from Law Society to the deputy Judge President D J P van der Merwe dated 12 October 2011

One awaits with interest to see whether the NPA and the Asset forfeiture unit, launch a similar attack against the substantial local and offshore assets of Attorney Michael de Broglio who emigrated to the United States in 2016, he having advertised extensively that he accepted instructions at a fee of 33.3% plus VAT of the damages recovered for clients.

It is public knowledge that he built up a very extensive Practice comprising thousands of clients, and would consequently have earned hundreds of millions of Rands fees in terms of such agreements. I do not criticise Mr de Broglio in any way, as he was simply doing the same that tens of thousands of other attorneys were also doing, in good faith.

It is common knowledge in the plaintiff injury fraternity and in particular amongst Mr de Broglio's erstwhile cooleagues that he was able to amass tens of millions of dollars in offshore assets and resides in a palatial home in Florida in the U.S.A

In fact we await with interest to see whether, the NPA will allege that any other of the thousands of attorneys who also utilised common law contingency fee agreements, and who charged fees between 25-35%, entered into multiple fee agreements with their clients as recommended by the Law Society are also guilty of theft and fraud, and that any savings and funds that they may hold locally or abroad, are also the proceeds of crime. The Law Society has the responses of the many firms of attorneys to a survey conducted by it, and in which these firms confirmed utilising such agreements. Presumably the Hawks have obtained the names of these firms, and are impartially also seeking to prosecute the owners of these firms, and to also attempt to seize their assets as the proceeds of crime.

This would include personal injury firms Flowers & Vermaak, Josephs, Natasha Kelly, Levin van Zyl and Hirschowitz Flionis, Clive Unsworth, Israel Goldberg, Gert Nel, Attorney Kroukamp, a number of whom are Katz's panel attorneys, and all of whom routinely utilised the same common law contingency fee agreements as RBP did. 

We find the "excellent cooperation" referred to by the NPA with the Israeli authorities unsurprising, given that Discovery's attorneys Edward Nathan represents the Government of Israel in South Africa, and that senior director Mr Michael Katz, and some of his partners ,who are members of the executive committee of the South African Jewish Board of deputies, have close contacts with many Israeli politicians and highly placed functionaries in Israeli government departments.

FAKE NEWS

JUNE 2017


1.Discovery’s Katz and Discovery’s belligerent attorney (who was accused of perjury by the Law Society), George van Niekerk of Edward Nathan - Cape Town, Proxy Anthony Millar and media lackey Beamish, in concert with certain employees of the Road Accident Fund, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Jewish Reports Ant Katz, have been making wild and unsubstantiated allegations that “the Bobroffs” (never RBP second senior director Mr Stephen Bezuidenhout who was made effectively invisible) had stolen hundreds of millions of Rands – only to be swiftly overtaken by Ant Katz and Millar with allegations that the amounts stolen was now over a Billion Rand!

2.So the question may be asked, what facts have emerged after the court appointed curator to the Practice of RBP and teams of auditors spent over a year scouring through every page of the Practices records and files, coupled with an obviously orchestrated media campaign by Beamish, Ant Katz and van Niekerks Media Lackey and ever so obliging Laura du Preez from the Star Personal Finance designed to incite and inflame former RBP clients to make claims against the Practice.

3.Without doubt all the aforesaid must now be extremely disappointed to have noted that the report by the court appointed curator to the Practice is that the Practices trust account balanced to the cent and that there was absolutely no shortfall whatsoever, and that all the books of account especially the trust account which receives monies ,received on behalf of clients was perfectly kept.

4.They must have been even more disappointed to have read in the curators report that not a single claim was ever made by any of the Practices former clients of any funds having been stolen. That was again confirmed in a letter received from the Attorneys Fidelity Fund (A fund set up by the profession to reimburse any client from whom their attorney had stolen money in the course of his or her practice). A further letter from the Fidelity Fund in June 2017 confirms what the curator had reported in November 2016. i.e. not a single theft claim by any one of RBP’s thousands of former clients.

5.Copies of the relevant parts of the Curators report and the Fidelity Funds letter are attached hereto as annexure “10” and annexure “11”.

ANNEXURE 10 - EXTRACT FROM CURATORS REPORT - CLICK HERE TO READ

ANNEXURE 11 - LETTER FROM FIDELITY FUND - CLICK HERE TO READ

6.Given that the curators report makes it abundantlly clear that there has been no theft/misappropriation of any RBP Inc. clients funds, one can only hope that responsible journalists and deceptive judges will have regard to this undisputed truth, the contrary of which has been so skillfully and dishonestly promoted by the armies of highly paid lawyers employed by Discovery, its proxies and others.


The real reason for Discovery's vendetta against Ronald,Darren and RBP Inc. and which its in house debt collector and hitman Jeff Katz openly threatened ,was aimed at " destroying you all , no matter what it takes and ,no matter what it costs "

 

The real reason for Discovery’s vendetta against Ronald Bobroff and Ronald Bobroff & Partners inc. Exposed

Discovery’s wilful non-disclosure of hidden rules and exclusions, and non-compliance with the Medical Schemes Act no. 131 of 1998.

1. Are you a member of Discovery Medical Aid and if so, did its Broker or anyone else on its behalf ever tell you, that the only medical care you and your dependents are unconditionally entitled to as of right is that arising out of illness. Were you told that medical care due to the act of another –e.g. Road Accidents, workplace Injuries, dog bites, assaults and so on are excluded unless you agree in writing, under threat of immediate termination of medical care and a further threat that you have to refund the cost of care already provided to your or your dependants, to claim from the wrongdoer at your own risk and cost and to thereafter reimburse Discovery in full any medical costs paid by it.

2. Did you ever receive a “detailed summary” of Discovery’s rule when you became a member? Despite the Medical Schemes Act making this compulsory in terms of Section 30(2) (a) - RBP and many members of the South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (“SAAPIL”), are yet to find a single member client of Discovery Medical Aid, who ever received this or ever had the benefit of Discovery complying with numerous compulsory provisions of the Medical Schemes Act. A schedule of some of these provisions is attached.  Annexure 1 - Summary of the Provisions of the Medical Schemes Act -Click here to read 

3.

3.1 If you had received this detailed summary you would have been shocked to find out something which Discovery Medical Scheme, and its Administrator, Discovery Medical Aid Administrators Limited, have very successfully managed to conceal from prospective members and actual members of the Scheme for decades.

3.2  Tucked away in Discovery’s never disclosed rules, is Rule 15.6.1 and Annexure “C”) which contains exclusions entitling Discovery to refuse you or your dependents any medical care which is due, “to the act of another” unless you agree, at your own risk and cost, to claim on Discovery’s behalf against the alleged wrongdoer for repayment of all medical costs paid by Discovery for your treatment. In practice this means that you have to bear the cost of your own Attorney, Advocates and medical experts, as also to face the risk of having to pay the Defendant’s/Road Accident Fund’s (RAF) legal costs – which in an ordinary High Court trial usually exceeds hundreds of thousands of Rands - should your claim prove unsuccessful. Annexure 2 Rule 15.6.1 of Discovery's letters forcing members to sign  click here to read

4. 
4.1 The first time most members of the Scheme find out about these hidden rules, is when they or a dependent are injured in a road accident, often in intensive care fighting for life. They or their families are then confronted by an employee from Discovery’s in house Road Accident Fund Medical Costs recovery department, headed up by Jeffrey Katz. A demand is made that the member or the dependent sign/s Discovery’s unlawful undertaking*, in which they/the victim agrees to make a claim against the Road Accident Fund (“RAF”) at own risk and cost, and to refund Discovery in full. Annexure 3 Undertaking to Discovery Health - click here to read

4.2  The undertaking document repeats the threat made by Discovery’s staff to the member or the dependent, that the Scheme will immediately terminate all medical care and claim back the cost of care already rendered should the member refuse to sign the document. This means that the member (you) or the dependent either has to come up with hundreds of thousands of Rands to deposit with the hospital, or lacking the resources to do so, transfer the loved one to a State Hospital; or sign Discovery’s unlawful undertaking. So, in reality there is no choice at all given the current state of affairs in public health facilities.

4.3 By acting this way Discovery also contravenes Regulation 10 of the Medical Schemes Act which prohibits any Medical Aid from refusing to provide Prescribed Minimum Benefit care to any member – P.M.B.’s specifically includes emergency care which is invariably required to save the lives of seriously injured road accident victims.  Annexure 4 - Regulation 10 of the Medical Schemes Act regarding brokers - click here to read

4.4  G.E.M.S – Government Employee’s Medical Scheme - the second largest Medical Aid in South Africa, under signature of its then CEO Dr Eugene Watson, issued a press release in April 2012 stating that it had removed from its rules any requirement that members injured in road accidents should be obliged to claim medical expenses from the RAF and reimburse the Scheme.

4.5  Dr Watson who has now moved on to become CEO of the Road Accident Fund, said that the scheme was doing so because it regarded such rules as unfair; especially since members were paying insurance premiums to the Scheme, in the justifiable expectation that they would receive medical care irrespective of the cause giving rise to the need for such care. Annexure 5 Press release from GEMS removing the rule to reimburse the scheme for past medical expenses - click here to read

4.6  Discovery has not to date adopted a similar ethical approach, but continues to  harass and bully members or their dependents who require medical care arising out of road accidents, as is described in the statements and affidavits by RBP clients/Discovery members in paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5.

*see below for details as to where to lodge complaints against Medical Aids.

1. The Council for Medical Schemes - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;

2. National Consumer Protection Commissioner -  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;

3. The Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

5.  RBP EXPOSES DISCOVERY’S UNETHICAL, AND PROBABLE CRIMINAL CONDUCT

5.1  RBP client Mark Bellon sustained a serious brain injury in a road accident in 2006, and whilst he was in a coma at Milpark Hospital, his wife Jody, pregnant with their fourth child, suddenly found herself confronted with a demand by Jeffrey Katz’s staff that she immediately sign Discovery’s unlawful undertaking document. Katz – a non-practising attorney - heads up Discovery’s in-house RAF medical costs recovery department and is believed to personally benefit financially from the collection of such monies.

5.2 Discovery’s unlawful  undertaking document forces the member to agree to claim against the RAF, at the members own risk and cost, so that Discovery be reimbursed in full, without any deduction of the usual substantial legal and medico legal costs often running into hundreds of thousands of rands.  Annexure 6 - Undertaking in favour of Discovery which Mark Bellon was forced to sign - click here to read

5.3 Whilst Mark was on a ventilator in intensive care fighting for his life, Jody was threatened that unless she signed Discovery’s undertaking document, Discovery would with immediately terminate Mark’s medical care and reclaim the cost of medical care already rendered to him.

5.4 As you will note, Discovery’s undertaking document which is attached, specifically repeats the verbal threat to terminate medical care and reclaim the cost of care already rendered, which Discovery routinely makes to members who sustain injury in road accidents. Annexure 6 -Undertaking in favour of Discovery which Mark Bellon was forced to sign/ - click here to read

5.5  A year after Mark’s accident, Katz’s staff approached him directly, and  by again threatening to terminate medical care and to reclaim the cost of care already rendered, forced him to sign Discovery’s unlawful undertaking document. At the time, Mark, the father of four young children, then still suffering from the aftermath of brain injury, and facing an uncertain future was in no position to pay Discovery almost R900,000.00. He accordingly he had no choice but to give in to Discovery’s blackmail.

5.6 Mark and Jody both had previously been employed by Discovery. Mark was a senior accountant and Jody was in customer relations. Neither of them had ever been informed that the only medical care they or their children were entitled to as of right, was that arising out of illness. They had also never received the detailed summary of the rules disclosing this, and which the law obliges Discovery to send to every member once they become admitted to the scheme.

5.7  As was the case in respect of every Discovery member client, interviewed by RBP as also by many other members of the South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (SAAPIL), the Bellons had never received such summary, or ever been informed that medical care arising out of road accidents, or indeed any cause other than illness, was excluded or made subject to oppressive and unexpected conditions in terms of Discovery’s never disclosed Rule 15.6.1 and annexure C to the rules.

5.8    Because many of RBP’s clients had, or were then facing the same threats and demands that Jeffrey Katz’s staff had made against the Bellon’s, Ronald wrote to Discovery’s attorney on 17 November 2010. He requested them to ascertain from Discovery, the legal basis on which Discovery claimed it was entitled to force its members to sign its undertaking document, referred to above, that they would claim from the RAF at own risk and cost and would refund Discovery all medical costs in full.

5.9   Almost two months later, on the 31 January 2011, a partial reply was received from James Haydock of attorneys Edward Nathan, Johannesburg. He alleged because prospective members when applying to join Discovery signed an Application Form which contained the words “the applicant undertakes to acquaint him/herself with the rules and to abide thereby”; and because Discovery registers its Rules with the Medical Schemes Council, all Discovery members were automatically bound to the (never disclosed) rules.

5.10  Haydock’s letter conveniently failed to disclose that Discovery had not, did not and probably never had complied with many compulsory provisions of the Medical Schemes Act. These provisions were obviously intended to ensure that medical aid members would be fully informed of all conditions and exclusions applicable to their medical care. Readers are referred to a summary of the relevant sections of the Act in paragraph 2 hereof. The Government/Parliament clearly regarded non-compliance with the Medical Schemes Act so seriously, that the Act punishes same with 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine or both.

5.11  Ronald Bobroff, a Past President of the Law Society, and a Law Society Councillor for almost 20 years, had received reports from many other personal injury attorneys in 2010, that they and their clients were then facing similar harassment from Discovery’s Jeffery Katz and his staff.

5.12 Ronald shared these reports with the members of the twenty four person Law Society Council. The Council adopted the view that Attorneys should prior to advising their clients to agree to medical aid demands, ensure that their clients were indeed legally obliged to sign undertakings in favour of medical aids to claim from the RAF at own risk and cost, and to reimburse the medical aid all medical costs recovered in full.  The Council unanimously agreed to send an urgent fax to its 14 000 members, urging them to exercise caution and diligence when advising their clients in this regard.

5.13  Although the Law Society’s fax made no mention of Discovery Medical Aid, Discovery, was the only medical aid of the approximately 100 registered medical aids in South Africa, which wrote to the Law Society attacking and threatening it. Katz demanded that the Law Society withdraw its fax or agree to him formulating a document, which the law society would then have to send to its members supporting Katz’s and Discovery’s demands. To its credit the Law Society refused to be intimidated.

5.14  The Law Society also received numerous letters from its members in response to its fast fax, confirming that they and their clients had also been subjected to threats and demands by Discovery. The Law Society Council decided to send out a further fax to its 14 000 members. This fax made specific reference to important and compulsory sections of the Medical Schemes Act, and urged attorneys to verify with their clients that these had been complied with by their Medical Scheme. Further that their clients had accordingly been informed by their medical aids of any exclusions and/or conditions applicable to road accident generated medical care.

6. THE REAL REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SEEKS TO DESTROY RONALD BOBROFF AND RBP INC.

THE FIRST REASON:

6.1 THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF RANDS ANNUAL INCOME, EXTRACTED BY DURESS/THREAT, FROM ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIM MEMBERS OF DISCOVERY

Discovery’s Jeffery Katz obviously realised that the cat was literally now well and truly out the bag, and that Discovery’s non-compliance with the Medical Schemes Act and the way in which it unlawfully threatened and bullied its members who sustained injuries in road accidents, would become widely publicised. Also that this contravention of the law could result in substantial adverse financial consequences for Discovery, and possible criminal prosecution of its Directors, Mr Barry Schwartzberg, Dr Jonathon Broomberg, the other Directors in office from time to time, Principal Officer Milton Streak, and the Trustees from time to time of the Scheme.

6.2 Discovery Group CEO Mr. Adrian Gore must have been alarmed as to these consequences which could follow Ronald’s inadvertent exposure of the INCONVENIENT TRUTH concerning Discovery’s unlawful and criminal conduct, whilst ethically protecting the rights of RBP clients.

6.3 This alarm clearly turned to panic after the Law Society sent its cautioning faxes to its 14,000 members, who would soon themselves also expose Discovery’s unlawful conduct. Gore, Swartzberg and Broomberg would also have been extremely concerned about the effect this could have on Discovery’s current membership, and on prospective members, who might well decide not to join the Scheme, but rather obtain medical aid cover from other Medical Aids such as GEMS, which would not deprive them or their dependents of medical care in life threatening road accident situations.

6.3.1   G.E.M.S, the second largest medical aid scheme in South Africa,  does not have these harsh terms and conditions in its rules. Dr E Watson, then CEO of G.E.M.S announced in 2012 that all such rules had been removed, given that members of GEMS were paying premiums in return for which they were entitled to expect road accident caused medical care, and that it was unfair that they be forced to have to claim from the RAF.  Annexure 5 - Press release from GEMS removing the rule to reimburse the scheme for past medical expenses - click here to read

6.4 It could reasonably be anticipated that attorneys having now been alerted by the Law Societies faxes, would properly advise their clients not to submit to Discovery’s threats and bullying, and accordingly they and their clients would refuse to sign Discovery’s Undertaking document.

6.5 As will be recalled, Discovery in its undertaking document threatens to immediately terminate medical care to members, (often fighting for their lives in intensive care), and to claim repayment of the cost of care already rendered from the member, unless the member or dependant signs the undertaking that the member would claim against the RAF at their own risk and cost, for Discovery’s benefit, and refund any medical expenses recovered to Discovery in full, out of the member’s personal injury claim.

6.6 Given that Discovery currently duresses approximately R120 million per annum out of the pockets of members who sustain injury in road accidents, Ronald Bobroff’s inadvertent exposure of Discovery’s’ illegal and extensive non-compliance with the Medical Schemes Act, was obviously seen as a threat to its cash flow by Discovery Medical Aid, directors, Schwartzberg, and Broomberg .They clearly realised that the river of easy money being squeezed out of road accident victims, was likely to become a mere trickle, once attorneys realised that their clients were victims of Discovery’s deliberate policy of illegal concealment of its oppressive rules and exclusions. No doubt Adrian Gore would have been equally concerned.

6.7 This all became immediately apparent when Katz, on behalf of Discovery, wrote a threatening letter to the Law Society, and let slip, that since the Law Society had sent its advisories to its members, urging them to give their clients proper advice, and to ensure that medical schemes making demands of clients injured in road accidents, had complied with the Medical Schemes Act, DISCOVERY’S RAKE OFF FROM MEMBER’S INJURED IN ROAD ACCIDENTS HAD DROPPED TO 25% OF WHAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN.  Annexure 7 -Threatening letter by Jeffrey Katz to Law Society and disclosing major financial losses by Discovery - click here to read

6.8 Given the tens of millions of rands involved, it is hardly surprising that Discovery would be desperate to regain the easy income from members it had for decades extracted under duress, by concealment of its harsh rules and exclusions, and by immoral threats to terminate medical care to members in life and death circumstances.  This alone would clearly have been sufficient motive for the initiation of the attack on Ronald Bobroff designed to discredit him and intimidate him into silence. It would then be unlikely that other Plaintiff attorneys witnessing the extent of the attack on Ronald, would be particularly keen to defend their client’s interests against Discovery. In paragraph 10, you will read about Katz’s interaction with attorneys Houghton Harper when they similarly endeavour to stand up for their clients’ rights against Discovery.

7. SECOND REASON FOR DISCOVERY’S VENDETTA AGAINST RONALD BOBROFF & RBP INC.

7.1 THE PROSPECT OF MASS RESIGNATION OF DISCOVERY  MEMBERS, ONCE THEY BECAME AWARE THAT THE ONLY MEDICAL CARE TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT, WAS THAT ARISING OUT OF ILLNESS; AND THAT ANY MEDICAL CARE DUE TO THE ACT OF ANOTHER WAS EXCLUDED OR SUBJECT TO HARSH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Discovery’s Directors must have clearly perceived a great risk of mass resignation of members if the exposure of Discovery’s unlawful conduct became widely published. Specifically its failure to disclose in terms of the law its exclusions and conditions depriving members of medical care required as a result of the act of another e.g. road accidents, dog bites, assaults, medical negligence, slip and fall, aircraft accidents, defective products and so on; and the way in which it was bullying members, as described in Affidavit’s and statements by Discovery members Mark Bellon, Dean Almeida, Ms Vawda, and Ms Sibisi. Annexure 8 Affidavits by Discovery members Mark Bellon Dean Almeida Ms. Vawda and Ms. Sibisi -click here to read

7.2   The entire Discovery Group, (a Public Company), has always been ,and is currently substantially funded by its captive Medical Aid Scheme (the only scheme amongst South Africa’s one hundred plus Medical Schemes which serves as a milk cow to a public company and its shareholders).  In 2013 the Discovery Group extracted R4.06 billion and comprising some 46% of the Discovery Group’s total operating income, from its captive medical aid.

7.3   Significant numbers of Scheme member resignations, would potentially dramatically reduce the cash flow from the Medical Scheme to the Discovery Group.

7.4   This in turn could impact on the value of Discovery shares, and that in turn impact on the value of its directors’ shareholdings, in particular Gore and Swartzberg, whose Discovery shareholdings are currently valued in excess of R5 billion and R2.2 billion respectively, and on the enormous salaries paid to Discovery directors in excess of R10 million per annum.

7.5   Discovery’s obvious plan was to attempt to intimidate, discredit and eventually destroy Ronald Bobroff and his Practice at all costs, so as to silence him and thereby limit and/or remove the very real threat to the financial interests of Gore, Swartzberg, Broomberg and other Directors. To date Discovery has clearly spent millions of Rands of shareholder funds to engage three Edward Nathan Directors, three junior Advocates, three senior Advocates and an assortment of Professional Assistants and Media Consultants in the execution of its attack.

8.  DISCOVERY’S VENDETTA – THE EVIL PLAN

8.1 The way in which Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz and his proxies, attorneys Berger and Millar, have conducted this vendetta against Ronald Bobroff and RBP Inc during the past three and a half years, is described in some detail in the documents which will now be referred to, and which are attached as annexures hereto.

8.2 Reference will also be made to various paragraphs in affidavits filed by the Law Society, when it opposed an application launched against it, Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff and RBP INC, by Discovery in the name of former RBP client Mr Graham and his wife. The Law Society affidavits describe how Discovery’s Attorney, George Van Niekerk of Edward Nathan, Cape Town, sought to harass and manipulate the Law Society to serve Discovery’s agenda against Ronald Bobroff and RBP Inc.

8.3 Within days of Ronald Bobroff’s letter 17 November 2010 to one of Discovery’s debt collecting attorneys, enquiring as to the basis on which Discovery alleged it was entitled to force members to claim from the Road Accident Fund, at their own risk and cost, and to reimburse Discovery in full, - Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz set about unlawfully obtaining information from the Road Accident Fund with regard to road accident claims settled with RBP during the previous three years, as a prelude to the vendetta about to be launched against Ronald and Darren and RBP Inc.

8.4 Katz, after identifying which of those RBP clients were Discovery members; sent them letters demanding repayment of road accident generated medical costs. The carrot and stick letters threatened to sue the member / the client for reimbursement of medical costs. Katz’s letter then went on to offer a carrot, that in return for the clients agreeing to “co-operate” with Katz by meeting with Discovery’s attorneys (van Niekerk), they would be released from any obligation to repay Discovery. As you will read in the affidavits/statements by the Bellons, Dean Almeida, Ms Vawda and Ms Sibisi attached hereto, this “co-operation” in reality meant becoming pawns, to be used by Katz in the furtherance of his /Discoveries vendetta against Ronald Bobroff has been the case with former RBP client Mr Graham and his wife.

8.5 The Law Society, an objective and impartial body, itself recognized that Mr Graham and his wife – the only client that Katz managed to persuade to “complain” against RBP – were merely pawns used by Discovery in the furtherance of its vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff and RBP Inc. It stated on oath that:

8.5.1 “Van Niekerk, (Discovery’s Attorney), is acting in interests other than those of the Applicants (the Grahams)” i.e. Discovery, which Van Niekerk admits instructs him and pays his bills”; Affidavit – 4/04/13 – paragraph 5.18

8.5.2 “despite the obvious involvement of Discovery, Van Niekerk attempts to explain that the applicants … bring the application in the interests of the public. I do not accept this contention, especially in view of the fact that the applicant’s legal costs in the application are paid by Discovery. It is furthermore apparent that this application is the result of a personal and highly acrimonious dispute between Discovery, assisted by Van Niekerk and the third respondent (Ronald).” Affidavit – 04 April 2013 – paragraph 10.5. 

8.6 Desperate to recruit RBP clients to serve as pawns, Jeff Katz resorted to alleged attempted bribery. See affidavits of complaint against Katz – a non-practising attorney - lodged with the Law Society by Mark Bellon and Dean Almeida, in which they state on oath how Katz allegedly attempted to bribe them into assisting him, in the furtherance of Discovery’s vendetta against Ronald Bobroff Annexure 9 - Statements of complaint against Katz by Mark Bellon and Dean Almeida - click here to read

8.7 Other RBP clients were also threatened and manipulated by Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz as will be noted from the statements by Mrs Vawda and Puleng Sibisi. Annexure 8 - Affidavits by Discovery members Mark Bellon ,Dean Almeida ,Ms. Vawda and Ms. Sibisi - click here to read

8.8 Of the scores of RBP clients to whom Katz had sent his carrot and stick letters, it was only Mr Graham ( the client), together with his wife who succumbed to Katz’s ploy. They have admitted in affidavits filed with the Law Society, that many months after Mr Graham had been paid his agreed settlement amount (and one must assume with satisfied therewith), it was only after receiving Katz’s letter in December 2010, demanding reimbursement of R327,000.00 in medical costs and threatening to sue them failing payment thereof, did they agree to meet with, and did meet with Katz and Discovery’s attorney, Mr George Van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town.

They have since then, and as specifically recognized  by the Law Society, been used by Discovery as pawns in the furtherance of its vendetta against Ronald Bobroff and RBP. Refer to paragraphs 13.5, 13.6 and 13.9 and the attachments referred to therein.

8.9  Mr and Mrs Graham had been ecstatic at the outcome of the High Court claim, which RBP had at its own risk and cost litigated in the High Court for almost four years, involving the engagement of numerous medical and other experts, as also a Senior Advocate.

8.10  It is emphasized that it was almost a year after Mr Graham had been paid and accounted to, and only after they had received the threatening carrot and stick letter from Discovery, thereafter met with Van Niekerk, and been informed by Katz that in return for their “co-operation” Discovery would effectively waive any repayment claim, or let them pay it on the never, did they suddenly became “dissatisfied” with RBP’s fee.

8.11  Mrs Graham is a street wise qualified bookkeeper, who holds a degree in psychology and who administered Mr Graham’s large plumbing business, employing 17 plumbers. She raised no objection to RBP’s agreed fee or statement of account when she personally collected this from RBP offices, nor for some 6 months thereafter. It was only after she and her husband agreed to “co-operate” with Katz in return for being let off payment of the demanded R327 000.00 to Discovery that the "dissatisfaction” arise.

8.12  Discovery have brazenly manipulated and used Mr and Mrs Graham as puppets in its on-going attack and vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff and RBP Inc. The Law Society itself recognized this in affidavits filed by it in Court and as is referred to in paragraphs 13.1 – 13.9 of this document.

8.13  Neither Mr or Mrs Graham attended the January 2014 hearing of the three day court application brought by Discovery against RBP and the Law Society in their names, and did not file any substantive affidavits in support thereof. Only after RBP’s attorney demanded proof that the Grahams were aware of the action taken by Discovery in their names, were one page confirming affidavits filed months later. This confirms that far from being an aggrieved client who together with his wife is passionately seeking relief and “protection” for other RBP clients, they are simply pawns trapped by Discovery’s threat to sue them for the R327 000.00 it claims they owe it.

8.14    Any possible doubt as to Katz/Discovery’s intentions were dispelled  when Katz specifically stated to RPB Directors, Ronald and Darren Bobroff, and Stephen Bezuidenhout , at the hearing of the appeal on the 30th June 2014 “don’t bother with appeals, we are going to destroy all three of you”. He repeated this threat some months later. Annexure 9 - Statements of complaint against Katz by Mark Bellon and Dean Almeida - click here to read

 

9.  DISCOVERY’S THREATS TO DESTROY ANY OTHER ATTORNEY WHO STANDS UP FOR THEIR CLIENT’S RIGHTS

9.1  A clear indication of what Katz/Discovery would do to any other attorney who stood up for their clients against Discovery’s demands and bullying, is evident from a letter sent by Katz to the senior director of Johannesburg personal injury Attorneys, Houghton Harper.

9.2  After one of that firm’s attorneys had sent a letter to Discovery objecting to Discovery’s bullying and threats to immediately terminate medical care to their seriously injured client, and to unlawfully reclaim the costs of medical care already rendered, Katz telephoned the Law firm and demanded to speak to Attorney Harper. As she was not in, Katz spoke with her assistant. He effectively threatened that should the firm not back down from defending its client against Katz/Discovery’s unlawful demands, threats and bullying, “she (Harper) would be dragged into the issue with a “big firm” (an obvious reference to RBP Inc) and reported to the Law Society” *See letters by attorneys Houghton Harper to Discovery and Katz. Annexure 10 - Letters by Houghton Harper to Discovery regarding Katzs threats - click here to read

 

10.  THE REAL REASON FOR THE DISCOVERY FUNDED APPLICATION TO THE PRETORIA HIGH COURT, IN THE NAME OF FORMER RBP CLIENT MR GRAHAM AND HIS WIFE, AGAINST RONALD AND DARREN BOBROFF /RBP INC. AND THE LAW SOCIETY

10.1     Discovery’s attorney George Van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town:  

10.1.1   Had largely failed in his efforts to manipulate the Law Society;
10.1.2  Had essentially failed, despite the strenuous efforts of Discovery’s huge legal team comprising three Edward Nathan Directors, a professional assistant and a senior and junior Advocate, to achieve their objective. This was that neither Mr and Mrs Graham should have to give oral evidence, and face cross-examination by RBP and its Advocate at a Law Society hearing, and which RBP were pressing the Law Society to arrange as soon as possible, so that the falsehoods alleged by van Niekerk and the Grahams be exposed.

10.2    Van Niekerk accordingly moved on to plan B which was an attempt to by- pass the Law Society as the Government appointed regulatory authority over Attorneys.

10.3    He attempted to do this by launching an application to court seeking to have the court take over the Law Society’s functions, and to decide the Graham “complaint” against RBP on the basis of affidavits in the name of former RBP client Mr Graham and his wife, carefully prepared by Discoveries legal team and designed to achieve this, without the Graham story being tested in actual oral evidence and cross-examination by RBP’s Advocate. Significantly, the Application was based entirely on affidavits made by Discovery’s Attorney Van Niekerk, with the Grahams playing no role whatsoever!

11. WHAT NOW FOLLOWS IS A DESCRIPTION BY THE LAW SOCIETY, OF ATTEMPTS BY DISCOVERY AND ITS ATTORNEY GEORGE VAN NIEKERK OF EDWARD NATHAN CAPE TOWN TO:

  • MANIPULATE THE LAW SOCIETY TO SERVE AS DISCOVERY’S PAWN;

  • FRUSTRATE THE NORMAL LAW SOCIETY PROCEDURES, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE “COMPLAINING” RBP EX-CLIENT, MR GRAHAM AND HIS WIFE, TO GIVE ORAL EVIDENCE AT LAW SOCIETY HEARINGS, and FACE CROSS-EXAMINATION REGARDING THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS;

  • BY-PASS THE LAW SOCIETY, BY LAUNCHING A BIZARRE DISCOVERY FUNDED APPLICATION BY VAN NIEKERK, DISCOVERY’S ATTORNEY, IN THE NAMES OF MR AND MRS GRAHAM, AGAINST RONALD AND DARREN BOBROFF, RBP INC AND THE LAW SOCIETY, BECAUSE THE LAW SOCIETY HAD RESISTED ATTORNEY VAN NIEKERK’S MANIPULATION ATTEMPTS

FURTHER HOW VAN NIEKERK:

11.1 Subjected the Law Society to a barrage of threatening correspondence seeking to force it to abandon its normal procedures and to thereby subject Ronald Bobroff and RBP Inc to unfair treatment;

11.2 Constantly threatened the Law Society that he would make applications to Court should the Law Society not give in to his demands;

11.3 Sought to influence the minds of members of a Committee appointed to consider the “Graham complaint”, which complaint was conceived, prepared and lodged by Van Niekerk, in the name of RBP former client, Mr Graham and his wife; by demanding that such Committee be given such affidavits, BEFORE the Committee had heard the evidence of the Grahams, or heard the Grahams’ response under cross-examination;

11.4 Remained silent whilst advocates instructed by him and paid by Discovery, misled a law society appointed investigating committee into making incorrect findings and recommendations, based on assumptions which he knew to be false i.e. that RBP had been paid a separate amount of R327,000.00 in respect of medical costs by the RAF in the Graham matter, when this had never been the case.

12.  LAW SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION LAUNCHED BY VAN NIEKERK AND ADVOCATES, PAID AND INSTRUCTED BY DISCOVERY, IN THE NAME OF FORMER RBP CLIENT MR GRAHAM AND HIS WIFE, AGAINST RONALD AND DARREN BOBROFF, RBP INC AND THE LAW SOCIETY

12.1 The full affidavits filed by the Law Society

12.2  Some relevant extracts from the Affidavits -  which may also be viewed on Ronald Bobroff’s websites www.bobroffronald.com and www.Bobroff.info  under the heading “A SHOCKING DISCOVERY FOR DISCOVERY MEMBERS”, and in which the Law Society states that the application, and by implication, the Graham “complaint” is a front for Discovery’s vendetta against Ronald Bobroff and RBP Inc follow hereunder:

12.3 The Law Society describes the application as “clearly vexatious (and)…. that they (the Grahams) are probably not acting in good faith”; Affidavit dated 21/11/13 paragraph 14 page 43;

12.4  The Law Society stated “that the Applicants (the Grahams) and/or Van Niekerk interfered in the Law Society’s investigation from the outset … and attempted to dictate to the Law Society.” Reference was also made by the Law Society to “Van Niekerk’s appalling conduct in this matter”; Affidavit dated 21/11/12 paragraph 7.8 and 17 – pages 12 and 44;

12.5 The Law Society stated that the “the relief (orders), provided for in the Notice of Motion (i.e. the Court Application), is essentially not sought by the Grahams, but by Van Niekerk and/or Discovery, on whose behalf Van Niekerk acts. It is abundantly clear that the Applicants (the Grahams) play a secondary role in these proceedings)”; Affidavit – 4/04/13 – paragraph 5.16 – page 10;

12.6 The Law Society recognised “that Van Niekerk …. is acting in interests other than those of the Applicants (the Grahams)” i.e. Discovery, which Van Niekerk admits instructs him and pays his bills; Affidavit – 4/04/13 – paragraph 5.18 – page 10;

12.7 The Law Society stated that “the Applicants (the Grahams) owe the Court an explanation as to untruths having been submitted to the Court under oath. The Applicant’s and/or Van Niekerk, should in my view, be called upon to show cause why their conduct should not be considered to be perjury and an attempt to mislead the Court”; Affidavit – 21/11/12 – paragraph 69.2 – page 73;

12.8 The Law Society clearly realised that “it is evident from the Applicants (the Grahams/Van Niekerk’s) version that what they are really aggrieved about is the fact that they failed in their vigorous attempts to dictate to the Law Society and to interfere in the Law Society’s investigation and disciplinary processes”; Affidavit – 21/11/12 – paragraph 17 – page 44;

12.9 The Law Society was not misled into believing that the Grahams were genuine clients of Van Niekerk in the normal way. I.e. instructed and paid by the client. The Law Society clearly recognized that the malicious application was not for the benefit of the Grahams or indeed anyone other than Discovery, when the Law Society stated:

   “despite the obvious involvement of Discovery, Van Niekerk attempts to explain that the applicants (the Grahams)….. bring the application in the interests of the public. I do not accept this contention, especially in view of the fact that the applicant’s legal costs in the application are paid by Discovery. It is furthermore apparent that this application is the result of a personal and highly acrimonious dispute between Discovery, assisted by Van Niekerk and the third respondent (Ronald Bobroff).” Affidavit – 04 April 2013 – paragraph 10.5 – page 18.

13. THE LAW SOCIETY DID NOT AND DOES NOT SEEK TO INSPECT RBP’S BOOKS. THE REASONS WHY RBP IS RESISTING EFFORTS BY DISCOVERY AND ITS PROXIES TO RANSACK RBP’S BOOKS FOR MALICIOUS ULTERIOR MOTIVES

13.1 The Law Society has never sought in the course of the so-called Graham complaint to inspect RBP’s books, and indeed on the contrary, made this clear in its answering and replying affidavits in the application conceived, funded and launched by Discovery against RBP and the Law Society and as is referred in paragraph 12 above.

13.2 It is a fact that the Law Society was placed in possession of RBP’s entire Graham file comprising some seven lever arch files, including all vouchers from service providers and RBP’s accounting to client. The Law Society has also received RBP’s ledger in the Graham matter reflecting all transactions which took place therein together with RBP’s elucidation of the ledger entries.

13.3 The Law Society stated at page 64, paragraphs 54.3 and 54.4 of its answering affidavit in the application referred to above that:  

54.3  The evidence will show that the applicants ( Grahams/Discovery) expected the Council to resolve on an urgent basis to conduct an inspection of the second, third and fourth respondents’ bookkeeping without applying its mind, without properly considering Faris’s report and without the availability of the second, third and fourth respondents’ comments on Faris’s report.  

54.4 Should the Council resolve that an inspection should be conducted by an auditor or forensic investigator, the report on the inspection will be considered to be privileged. The auditor or forensic investigator who will conduct such inspection will act as the Law Society’s expert and he will testify during the disciplinary proceedings.”

13.4 Further the legal official appointed to deal with the “Graham complaint”, in response to a specific question from the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee, at the commencement of the hearing on the 13 June 2013, as to whether the enquiry could proceed without an inspection of RBP’s books, responded “that is correct Mr Chairman.” i.e. the Law Society did not require an inspection.  Significantly and despite RBP and the Law Society being desirous of having the so called Graham complaint finally heard, Discovery’s Attorney – George Van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town – purportedly representing the Grahams again engineered a postponement of the disciplinary hearing, as he had done in respect of the hearing scheduled by advance agreement with him for the 28th of November 2012.

13.5 The reason why RBP has, and continues to resist Discovery’s efforts to obtaining unfettered access to RBP’s books are the following:

13.5.1 When the Law Society requires an inspection of an attorney’s books of account, absent complaints of widespread misappropriation of trust funds, and which is of course not the case here where no allegation whatsoever of this nature has ever been made, the inspection by a Law Society appointed auditor is usually limited to the entries and ledger relating to the matter complained of.

13.5.2 The report by an auditor appointed by the Law Society to inspect the member’s books, is then made available to the attorney for comment, and the comment and the report is then dealt with confidentially by the Law Society in the normal course of its procedures and as is referred to in 13.3 above.

13.5 In the Graham “complaint” what Discovery is seeking is a publication of private and confidential information concerning RBP’s clients’ affairs and also the Practice’s and its directors’ personal financial affairs, by its obliging media pawn – Beamish -  who has been diligently serving its cause since January this year. The inspection it desires of ALL RBP’s business and trust accounts, is not limited to the so-called Graham complaint and it further and for obvious reasons is pressing for any auditor’s report, not to only be given to the Law Society to be dealt with in the normal confidential process; but that this be given directly to DISCOVERY, whose malevolent intent, as a continuation of its ongoing vendetta in this regard has been made clear as is referred to hereinafter.

13.6  It is a matter of record that Discovery’s Panel Attorneys have similarly to many thousands of LSNP members, also utilized common-law contingency fee agreements for more than a decade, with the blessing of the Law Society.  Discovery in May of this year, wrote to RBP clients, whom it had identified as being its members, from lists stolen from RBP by former RBP bookkeeper, Bernadine Van Wyk, a multiple convicted fraudster,  and who had been recruited by Discovery, to serve as its agent in RBP’s offices. Discovery’s letter sought to incite RBP clients to challenge RBP’s Law Society compliant contingency fee agreements. Discovery offered the services of its Legal Department, and unsurprisingly those of its proxy, Mr Anthony Millar.  Messrs Berger and Millar are still to answer to numerous affidavits filed with the Law Society by their former clients deposing as to their extensive touting operation at Natalspruit Hospital. Discovery’s letter to RBP clients is attached as Annexure 23 A - click here to read

13.7 Further, Discovery Medical Aid MD Dr Jonathan Broomberg, was reported in the media as stating:  

"Discovery Health will endeavour to identify and contact all Discovery Health members who may be affected by this ruling (i.e. that common law agreements were declared invalid). We would also encourage all brokers to contact any of their clients who may have claimed from the RAF following a motor vehicle accident and who may potentially be affected by the Constitutional Court rulings."

13.8 RBP Directors and staff have made enquiry from numerous Plaintiff personal injury Attorneys as to whether any of their clients, who are members of Discovery Health, received the same or similar letters to that sent to RBP clients and none reported having received such letters. It is therefore clear that this is simply yet another aspect of Discovery’s vendetta against RBP Inc.

13.9 We submit that no attorney’s firm, should, could or would accept an obvious and malicious attempt by commercial enemies to gain access, via an unjustified audit inspection of its records, for purposes wholly unconnected with any legitimate complaint and not required by the Law Society, but aimed solely at the destruction of the Law Firm concerned!

13.10  Readers are invited to peruse on Ronald Bobroff’s website for the application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, in which this issue is addressed in detail.

14. MALICIOUS AND HYPOCRITICAL ATTACKS ON RBP INC’S NO-WIN NO-FEE, LAW SOCIETY COMPLIANT COMMON LAW CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS –THE  DE LA GUERRE AND BITTER/DE PONTES CASES

14.1 For over one hundred years, attorneys in the United States, HAVE represented clients in damages claims on a no win – no fee contingency basis. The attorney receives a percentage of the damages recovered, on a successful outcome, as a fee. The percentage ranges from a third to 60%.

14.2 Attorneys in South Africa, who specialize in personal injury work, have always understood,  that with rare exceptions victims of personal injury or medical negligence are wholly unable to fund litigation, and without a successful outcome, the attorney covers the risk of all expenses and receives no fee for his/her work.

14.3 The case law at the time the Law Society ruled in 2002 that its members be permitted to enter into common law contingency fee agreements was that as stated by Judge Cameron, in the case of Headleigh Private Hospital v Soller and Manning attorneys, 2001 (4) SA 360.

14.4 Judge Cameron, at page 371 of his judgement, when considering the validity or otherwise of the 25% common law contingency fee agreement entered into between attorney Soller and his client in that matter, made reference to the judgment by Stegman, J in the Good Gold Jewellery case 1992 (4) SA 474 where Stegman, J noted “in practice the position is that when a litigant is not in a financial position to fund his litigation completely, such an agreement may be upheld as valid.” Judge Cameron then went on to rule that  “ this is precisely Soller’s claim “, “ in the absence of further grounds for suggesting the agreement was invalid, I am not disposed to conclude that it was”.

14.5 Significantly this judgment, upholding the validity of a common Law percentage contingency fee agreement, was handed down a year after the promulgation of the Contingency Fees Act 1987 and to which Judge Cameron made specific reference. The Contingency Fees Act does not contain any provision prohibiting common law contingency no win – no fee agreements outside the Act.

14.5.1  It is of course a matter of record that the Law Societies of the Northern Provinces and the Law Society of the Free State, together governing some 70% of practicing attorneys accepted the validity of such judgment, and the opinions of eminent Senior Advocate E Labuschagne SC., in making their rulings in 2002, permitting their members to enter into such contracts with their clients.

14.5.2  The Law Society, after considering opinions obtained by it from Marcus SC and Trengrove SC, resolved to rather accept the opinions furnished it by Labuschagne SC.  Regard was also had by the Law Society Council, to the finding by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Price Waterhouse case, which held that maintenance and champerty were no longer prohibited in our law, and that laypersons were free to fund litigation in return for a percentage of the proceeds of such litigation. In that case 45% of the damages to be recovered from Price Waterhouse.

14.6 As recently as late 2010, in a paper delivered by highly respected Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Malcolm Wallis he had the following to say in support of common law percentage fee agreements:

“Contingency fee agreements have been relatively successful in South Africa in making personal injury litigation available to even the very poor in our community. Whilst we have a statute that regulates this topic it is badly drafted and generally ignored by the attorneys who act on a contingency. In practical terms these attorneys conduct litigation on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis whereas at the successful conclusion of a case, they will tax a conventional bill of costs (which covers a fair proportion, but not all, of their disbursements) and charge over and above that a proportion, usually 25% though sometimes less with small claims, of the damages recovered. The latter fee is not recoverable from the other side. Whilst there are occasional complaints of over-reaching in these arrangements, by and large they appear to work well and people are willing to sacrifice part of their damages in return for making some recovery”

“…Lastly if something can be done to break the near universal reliance on charging by time, particularly by attorneys, but increasingly by counsel, that would be a good thing.  Our courts have bemoaned it as a basis for charging fees, describing it as putting a premium on slowness and inefficiency”.  Annexure - 11 Extract of paper by Judge Malcolm Wallis - click here to read

14.7 The First judgment specifically stating that a common law contingency fee agreement was invalid, was that by acting judge Morrison in the Thulo matter late 2011, and only reported in the Law Reports in 2012.  It is therefore unfair, to criticize or penalize any attorney who followed the Law as stated by Judge Cameron and who also complied with the Law Society’s rulings permitting and supporting the use of common law contingency fee agreements, from 2002 until the Thulo judgment was reported in 2012.

14.8 Even Mr Faris, an accountant instructed and paid by Discovery to assist it in its attack on Ronald and RBP, pertinently notes in paragraph 6.7 of his report when making reference to third party claims that, “it is common practice for this type of service, for the attorney to work on a contingency basis. Such a contingency basis means that a percentage of the capital (damages) will accrue to the attorney as a fee if the claim is successful. If not, no fee will be charged. It is not clear to me if the attorney is permitted to retain the party and party fee in addition to a fixed percentage fee agreed upon”.

14.9 As stated above, in 2002, the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, (regulating 60% of South Africa’s Attorneys), in response to public demand, made a ruling that its members be permitted to enter into common-law contingency (no win-no fee) agreements with clients, in terms of which the Attorney’s fee would normally be 25% plus VAT, of the damages recovered. A Law Society survey of its members indicated that 94.94% of them utilized common-law contingency fee agreements.

14.10 The Law Society in its rulings, issued in 2002 and 2003 respectively, and in its letters dated 1 August 2011 and 12 October 2011, to the Deputy Judge President of the Pretoria High Court, and which included a proposed model percentage contingency fee agreement almost identical to that used by RBP; made clear its strong and reasoned support for Common-law Contingency Fee Agreements. It also made it clear in Affidavits filed in Court that such agreements were utilised by its thousands of members from 2002 onwards in accordance with the law as it understood same. The Law Society’s rulings in 2002 are attached. Annexure -12 Law Societys ruling on the validity of common law contingency fee agreements -click here to read

14.11 It will also be noted from the letter 12 October 2011 sent by the Law Society to the then Deputy Judge President of the Pretoria High Court, the Law Society did not lay down any maximum or minimum percentage. It stated that where the attorneys fee exceeded 25% “it will have to be justified, having regard to the various aspects which will have to be considered.”

14.12 Significantly there were widespread differences of opinion as to the true meaning of the Contingency Fees Act. Such differences ranged from whether the Act, which contained no express prohibition of attorneys entering into contingency agreements, with clients outside of the Act, could be read as impliedly doing so; to varied interpretations as to how the success fee was to be calculated.  Eminent Natal silk, Muller, opined that the attorney was at all times entitled to charge for work done at an agreed bill out rate per hour and that that part of the fee was not capped at all. He went on to further express the view that the attorney was then entitled to a success fee of double the time fee and that it was only the doubled up time fee over and above the so-called normal time fee that was capped at 25% of the damages recovered. In practice an attorney could therefore receive three times his/her normal time fee.

14.13 Further various judges in considering the Act have delivered judgments interpreting the Contingency Fees act widely divergent from each other.  Judge Morrision held in the Thulo Judgment that in addition to the fees provided for in the Act, the attorney could also retain for his/her benefit the party and party costs recovered on the client’s behalf. Deputy Judge President Mojapelo held to the contrary in the Mofokeng case. There have also been other judgments holding divergent interpretations of the Act. It is therefore submitted with respect that no attorney should be criticized for entering into common law contingency fees agreements prior to the definitive ruling by the Constitutional Court in the SAAPIL matter.

15. THE DE LA GUERRE AND DE PONTES MATTERS

15.1 Ironically, Discovery Medical Aid’s so-called panel of Attorneys, utilised virtually the same agreements as RBP did, and copies of these agreements are available on request. Some attorneys, who advertise extensively, e.g. De Broglio, published and distributed his agreement stipulating for a 33.3% fee and encouraged other attorneys to utilise his agreement and do likewise. View copies of the agreements used by some Personal Injury attorneys. – De  Broglio, Josephs, Hirschowitz Flionis – which are virtually identical to RBP’s contingency fee agreements. Annexure 13 - Common law fee agreement - Click here to read

15.2 RBP represented a Ms De La Guerre in a road accident claim in which she sustained moderate injuries, such as to only require medical expenses amounting to R397.00. After more than three years of High Court litigation at RBP’s risk and cost, involving numerous medical and other experts, and the engagement of a highly experienced Advocate to conduct her three day trial, a breath-taking award of R2, 538,811.02 was achieved. The advocate briefed on trial had furnished an opinion prior to the trial, expressing his view that Ms De La Guerre would be lucky to be awarded between R200 000.00 – R250 000.00!.

15.3 RBP’S Law Society compliant no win – no fee agreement, provided for a fee of 30% of damages recovered, given the particular circumstances and challenges of the claim. Ms De La Guerre was fully accounted to and paid in respect of all moneys recovered on her behalf. Her excitement when informed of the outcome was such that she had to be given homeopathic rescue drops to calm her hysteria, and stop her continually and hypnotically shouting, “I’ll never have to work again”.

15.4 She was fully paid and accounted to. It is understood that months later she was contacted and successfully manipulated by one of Katz’s staff and/or Millar into agreeing to challenge RBP’s Law Society compliant Contingency Fee Agreement. Significantly, Discovery’s Katz was present in Court throughout the proceedings and a photograph of him standing next to Ms. De La Guerre outside the Court is attached Annexure - 17- Photos of Discoverys Katz with De La Guerre and Berger and Millar click here to view

15.5 Hypocritically Millar (Katz’s proxy), whilst attacking contingency fee agreements outside the provisions of the Contingency Fees Act, himself entered into precisely such an agreement with Ms De La Guerre.  Even worse is the fact that his common-law agreement unlike RBP’s Law Society compliant one, provides no limit on the fee charged i.e. it is not capped at 25% of the damages recovered, but expressly states that no cap will apply in relation to the amount recovered.Annexure 13-Common law fee agreement - click here to read

15.6 SAAPIL’S attorney when perusing the files in respect of clients whom Millar had touted from Natalspruit Hospital, and which files Millar only produced after an application was made to the High Court to compel him to do so; that Millar routinely contracted on the same basis with such clients, and that his fees invariably substantially exceeded 25% of the damages recovered.

15.7 The Law Society of the Northern Provinces in its continuing support of common-law contingency fee agreements, filed Affidavits in this regard, both in the Goldschmidt case where Millar had attacked Attorney Goldschmidt’s fee agreement, and also in the De La Guerre case. Copies of the Law Society’s Affidavit may be viewed Under the heading “Law Society Contingency Fee Affidavit”.

15.8.1 It is a matter of record that many thousands of Attorneys, in good faith and in compliance with the Law Society’s rulings, entered into hundreds of thousands of Law Society compliant contingency fee agreements with their clients during the past 11 years,  and that the Law Society received few, if any, complaints from clients regarding such agreements.

15.8.2 The enthusiasm of the Law Society Council for the utilization by its members of common-law contingency fee agreements, is evident by the announcement of such ruling, by Mr C P Fourie, (twice President of the Law Society, long standing Chairman of the Law Society’s Court Practice Committee, Chairman of the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, and oft acting Judge); when he ended off his announcement of the ruling in the Law Society’s “Society News” publication by stating “a step forward?  For sure!”

15.9  With the confirmation by the Constitutional Court in February 2014 that common law contingency agreements are invalid, RBP, has abided the judgment.

15.10 When considering the De La Guerre/SAAPIL appeals, the Constitutional Court, appropriately made no negative observations concerning Attorneys in general, or RBP Inc in particular, who had contracted with their clients in accordance with the rulings made by the Law Society, to charge clients a straight common-law percentage contingency fee.

15.11 The Constitutional Court observed that “Certain Law Societies made rulings allowing their members to charge in excess of the percentages set in the Act. Uncertainty reigned in the attorneys’ profession about the correct legal position in relation to Contingency fees. Could these fees be charged only under the Act, or also outside the provisions?” The Court went on to note that “Bobroff was one of the firms which charged more than allowed for in the Act, as the rules of its professional association allowed”.

15.12 The vicious attacks by Beamish in Moneyweb/the Citizen, clearly as Discovery/ Millar’s mouthpiece, against Ronald Bobroff and RBP Inc, portraying RBP as the only firm of attorneys in South Africa who used common-law contingency fee agreements, and that there was something improper, is deliberately false and contrived. A Law Society survey of its 16,000 members indicated that 94.94% of attorneys polled utilized exactly the same agreements!

15.13 Indeed, as Beamish is well aware from copies of fee agreements given to him, Discovery’s Panel attorneys, answerable to Katz, have utilized the same common-on law contingency fee agreements as RBP. Beamish is also aware that the majority of attorneys doing personal injury work, including those who advertise extensively i.e. De Broglio, who charged 33.3%, Josephs Inc, Levin Van Zyl, and others, utilised the same agreements as RBP, yet he has deliberately refused to report this. Beamish is similarly aware that Millar has attacked Fluxmans Attorney’s use of a common law percentage fee agreement with one of their former clients yet has steadfastly failed to make mention of this recent litigation anywhere. We do not criticize these attorneys, who were simply following the good faith rulings by the Law Society permitting them to do so, and in accordance with the law ( prior to 2011) as it was understood, in terms of the Headleigh Clinic Judgment.  See copies of two accounts rendered by Joseph’s to clients reflecting their 25% common law contingency fee in 2010. Annexure 14 -Statements of account by Josephs Inc. click here to read - Mr J and Ms M

16. HOW AND WHY BERGER AND MILLAR HAVE BECOME KATZ/DISCOVERY’S PROXIES IN THE FURTHERANCE OF DISCOVERY’S VENDETTA AGAINST RONALD BOBROFF AND RBP INC.

16.1 Following on Berger and Millar’s attacks on Attorney Deon Goldschmidt’s common law percentage fee agreement in 2007/2008 and thereafter on RBP’s similar agreement, members of the South African Association of Personal Injury Attorneys (SAAPIL), and other personal injury attorneys reported allegations of unprofessional conduct by Berger and Millar to SAAPIL. They also reported that Berger and Millar themselves utilised common law contingency fee agreements. Demands were made that SAAPIL investigate these allegations and place any information obtained before the Law Society.

16.2 Independent professional investigators were instructed to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations.  The outcome was that the investigators obtained irrefutable proof of the truth of the allegations, in the form of affidavits by dozens of Berger and Millar’s clients, all of whom related how they had been touted by Jabu Gxokwa, an employee of Berger and Millar, from their Natalsprut Hospital beds. Evidence was also obtained as to their systematic use of common-law contingency fee agreements, and the gross overcharging of some of these poor and illiterate black clients by Millar and Berger.

16.3 Attached are copies of just two, of the dozens of affidavits obtained by SAAPIL appointed investigators from Berger/Millar’s clients, describing how they were touted at Natalspruit Hospital by Jabu Gxokwa Berger/Millar’s tout.  Mr Gxokwa’s affidavit confirming this may be also viewed in Annexure 15 below. In terms of the Law Society’s rules, and judgments by the Supreme Court of Appeal, attorneys found guilty of such touting are virtually certain of being struck off the roll of attorneys.

 Annexure 15 - Affidavits of touted clients and Millars tout Mr.Jabu Gxokwa - click here to read

16.4 Affidavits by Jacque de Klerk and Hennie Scholtz, two independent investigators appointed by SAAPIL, and who interviewed Berger and Millar’s touted clients, and in which they confirm that proper protocol was observed bythem when obtaining such affidavits, are attached.

Annexure 16 - Affidavits of Hennie Scholtz and Jacque de Klerk - click here to read

16.5 Advocate Albert Lamey - a prominent Pretorai Advicate (previously a long standing partner at the Law Societys attorneys Messrs Rooth and Wessels Inc.),was instructed by SAAPIL to represent Berger and Millar’s former clients, and from whom SAAPIL investigators, had obtained affidavits deposing to how they were touted by Millar’s tout at Natalspruit Hospital, interviewed such clients and had the following to say after such interviews : “I wish to mention that I had the opportunity to consult with various of the deponents to the affidavits. In respect of those that I have consulted with (most of the clients), I did not get the impression that there was anything improper in the manner in which the affidavits were obtained. They all confirmed that they made the affidavits voluntarily and understood the contents thereof and confirmed it again”.

16.6 It is therefore obvious why Berger and Millar would be most anxious to attack Ronald Bobroff – SAAPIL’s President – because SAAPIL’s investigations, unanimously authorized by SAAPIL’s Executive Committee at the time, had exposed Berger and Millar’s serious and long standing unprofessional conduct. It is understandable that they would be keen to seek vengeance by joining forces with Discovery’s Jeffrey Katz. Of course the added bonus was that they have been rewarded for doing so, by being appointed to Katz’s so-called “Discovery Panel of Attorneys”. This is nothing more than a front for an extensive touting operation, which includes the additional incentive for the panel attorney being permitted to cream off 10% - 15% of the moneys the Discovery sourced client is “persuaded” to reimburse Discovery. To the best of our knowledge this common law percentage contingency commission fee is never disclosed to the client.

16.7 Attached are photos taken of Berger (elderly man), Millar and Katz (in pink shirt) where they are seen lunching together some time ago, at a restaurant very distant from their respective offices. They were dismayed at being seen together and desperately sought to avoid being photographed.

16.8 Evidence of Discovery’s Katz’s involvement in Berger and Millar’s representation of former RBP client Ms de La Guerre, in attacking RBP’s fee agreement, is seen in the photograph taken of Katz, Berger, Millar and Ms De La Guerre seated together during the Pretoria High Court hearing of the De La Guerre matter. Also of Katz standing with her outside the Court. Why else would Katz have been there?

Annexure 17 - Photos of Discoverys Katz with De La Guerre and Berger and Millar - click here to view 

16.9 As will be noted in a letter sent by Berger and Millar, to a SAAPIL members’ road accident victim client, they clearly attempted to tout/solicit instructions from that person to handle their RAF claim.

Annexure 18 - Letter sent by Berger and Millar attempting to tout - click here to read

16.10 Discovery’s media pawns – primarily Beamish - are well aware that common-law no win - no fee  agreements have been the standard form of contract utilized by personal injury lawyers since the Law Society go ahead to do so in 2002. They have copies of the almost identical agreements used by other well-known Plaintiff attorneys, but for obvious reasons have remained silent about that, given their Discovery promoted agenda against RBP. Some Panel Attorney Agreements attached

Annexure 19 - Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements of other personal injury firms - click here to read

16.11 Berger and Millar currently face six allegations before the Law Society, of their touting poor and unsophisticated Black clients from Natalspruit Hospital, with many more identical complaints soon to follow, given that evidence is available that their Practice is based extensively on clients touted from that Hospital.

16.12 SAAPIL and these former Berger/Millar clients legal representatives, will ensure that the anticipated Law Society Committee hearing of these complaints, will take place transparently, during which the clients will be present and represented by an Attorney and Advocate, so as to ensure that the Law Society’s usual procedures are adhered to.

17. DISCOVERY AND ITS PROXY, MILLAR’S RECRUITMENT OF RBP BOOKKEEPER BERNADINE VAN WYK – A TEN TIMES CONVICTED FRAUDSTER, JAILBIRD AND THIEF.

17.1 In September 2010, RBP had employed an additional bookkeeper, Bernadine Van Wyk, (who also used the surnames Burgers and Janse Van Rensburg, when it suited her), She had not disclosed to RBP, nor as it turned out, to two other firms of attorneys by whom she had been previously employed, that she had been convicted of TEN counts of fraud by false pretences and had served a term of imprisonment.  She also did not disclose that she had stolen R1 300 000.00 from another attorney and blackmailed him into not laying criminal charges against her during 2006/8.

17.2 Unbeknown to RBP Directors, Van Wyk had been recruited by a Millar and advocate Bradley Anderson, who worked closely with them to serve as Millar’s/Discovery’s spy and agent in RBP’s offices. She continued to do so until her behaviour aroused suspicion and investigators appointed by RBP unearthed her criminal record. An affidavit by an RBP staffer, who was friendly with Van Wyk, deposing to Van Wyk’s being offered employment by Discovery and more, has been filed in Court.

Bernadine Van Wyks criminal record - Click here to read

17.3 Following a disciplinary hearing before an independent Chairperson and at which SHE WAS REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE ERIC MYHILL (long-time friend and business associate of Millar and Berger) and who had been INSTRUCTED BY THEM TO REPRESENT HER; she was on the recommendation of the Chairperson immediately fired.

17.4 Within days of her dismissal, an application to court, funded by Discovery and prepared by its huge Legal Team, in the name of a former RBP client Mr Graham and his wife, was launched against the Law Society and RBP. The application papers included a lengthy affidavit by Van Wyk filled with lies, distortions, hearsay and allegations clearly intended to please her masters. Significantly the fax print out details of Messrs Berger and Millar appeared on top of some of the pages of  her affidavit. This is not surprising given that they have at all times, and currently still co-operate with Discovery’s Attorney George Van Niekerk of Edward Nathan Cape Town, and Discovery’s Katz, in the furtherance of Discovery’s vendetta against RBP.

17.5 This serial criminal and paid Discovery agent was referred to by Beamish in one of his diatribes against RBP, as “courageous”.

18. DISCOVERY’S OBLIGING MEDIA FRIENDS

18.1 Given Discovery’s huge media budget and reputation of threatening and intimidating reporters who refuse to dance to its tune, it is hardly surprising that some “reporters”, routinely publish Discovery’s preferred version of events, rather than that of Ronald Bobroff and the Practice’s clients. RBP has evidence of constant communications between Beamish, Discovery’s Katz, Millar and “editor” of MoneyWeb, Ryk van Niekerk, in which they conspire to publish false and malicious articles attacking RBP. RBP has also recently discovered that one of its staff, had been recruited by Beamish and possibly others, to shockingly and criminally furnish a steady stream of confidential information relating to the practice, its directors’ personal affairs and its clients to Beamish.  This and other evidence will be presented to the Court and the Law Society in due course. 

18.1.1 The real and true story concerning Ronald Bobroff’s exposure of Discovery’s deliberate and fraudulent non-disclosure of its rules, exclusions and conditions applicable to road accident generated medical care; in flagrant and criminal breach of the Medical Schemes Act, and the way in which it bullies members and their families who sustain injuries in road accidents, was described by the late and highly respected journalist, David Gleason, to one of his associates as:

18.1.2 “A David and Goliath battle, involving a principled lawyer with a forty year unblemished record of service to the Profession and the Public interest.”

18.2 “An unprecedented attack on a lawyer with a decades long record of speaking truth to power, by a multi-billion rand public company set on destroying him, his son and his Practice because they stood up for the rights of their clients in exposing Discovery’s fraudulent and illegal shenanigans. “

18.3 RBP was informed that Gleason, a member of Discovery health himself, after having learnt of Discovery’s shenanigans, became incensed when he experienced on-going evasiveness by Discovery and its staff, including Adrian Gore’s personal assistant, in failing to provide its rules.  This after Gleason had written to Gore himself expressing his frustration at not being able to obtain a copy of Discovery’s rules, despite telephoning Discovery and personally visiting its offices.

18.4 RBP was also informed that Gleason’s independent investigations, involving interviews with Discovery members, who had sustained injuries in road accidents, and who had told him how they had been bullied, threatened with immediate termination of medical care, and harassed as Mark and Jody Bellon describe in their affidavits referred to in paragraph 9, made Gleason determined to expose Discovery Medical Aid and its Directors. Annexure 20 - Business Day Article -click here to view)

18.5 Significantly, notwithstanding that RBP Inc has three Directors, Ronald Bobroff, Darren Bobroff and Stephen Bezuidenhout, a respected lawyer, who has been with the Practice since 1976, and who follows exactly the same modus operandi as all the partners and professional staff as RBP do; no mention has ever been made of him by Discovery/ its proxies Berger and Millar or its media pawns.

18.6 This is clearly because the vendetta by Discovery and its proxies is focused on Ronald who as the senior director, has stood up for the Practice’s clients against Discovery and who they want to doubly destroy, i.e. Ronald and his son.

18.7 Finweek’s James Styan, a brave and principled journalist, courageously and truthfully reported what Discovery was up to. Annexure 21- Report by James Styan in FinWeek - click here to read

18.8 An obscure “reporter”, Tony Beamish, who occasionally writes for Noseweek, and who had not published a word about the Discovery/RBP saga during the preceding three years, suddenly popped up in January 2014, at the Pretoria High Court hearing of the Discovery/Graham application against RBP and the Law Society. He was noted to be in constant intense discussion with Discovery’s attorney George Van Niekerk of ENS Cape Town and Discovery’s Jeffery Katz, as also Berger and Millar, who although not being involved in the hearing in any way whatsoever, were present in court together with their entire Professional staff compliment of two persons during the full three day hearing.

18.9 During a lunch adjournment of the hearing, Beamish let slip to RBP Directors, that he had been “brought back to South African from France”, where he had been living, and that having a French driver’s licence had enabled him to escape liability for speeding and other traffic offences. He clammed up when he was asked who had brought him back to South Africa and why, but his strident, malicious and never ending attacks on  Ronald and Darren Bobroff and RBP Inc, in serving Discovery and its proxy, Millar’s agenda leads to an irresistible inference as to who this might be! RBP’s is in possession of evidence conclusively proving the connivance between Beamish, Discovery’s Katz, Millar and Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk as also a number of other persons and entities. A full disclosure will be made of all persons involved in criminal and/or civil proceedings which may follow.

18.10 Beamish has to date published more than 16 attacks on Ronald, Darren and RBP, in MoneyWeb online, in the Citizen newspaper, and also 2 vitriolic diatribes in Noseweek. Beamish has also recently published an obscene article in Noseweek, attacking the Law Society and its recent past president, a  highly respected and leading Lawyer who also holds office as President of the Black Lawyers Association; and of course, predictably Ronald Bobroff, RBP, senior RBP Attorney Phillipa Farraj and SAAPIL. Unsurprisingly the main thrust of Beamish’s articles, was aimed at trying to salvage some sort of credibility for Berger and Millar, who according to dozens of Affidavits in SAAPIL’s possession, are ambulance chasers of the worst kind, overcharging and profiting off the poorest of the poor.

18.11 Beamish conspired with Millar to stage a fraudulent visit by the Sheriff of the Court to RBP’s offices, in respect of a costs order against RBP, in the De La Guerre matter, calculated to depict RBP as unable to pay these costs. RBP had written to Millar within an hour of the Constitutional Court judgment holding the Law Society modelled common-law fee agreement invalid, inviting Millar to immediately advise RBP of the specific amount due in respect of the costs, as also his Practice bank account details, so that RBP could do an immediate transfer. He failed to do so, obviously so he could stage the fraudulent execution by the Sheriff. Beamish is also yet to explain, despite frequent invitations to do so, why he copies Discovery’s Katz with the emails he exchanges with RBP regarding Berger and Millar’s  use of unlawful common-law contingency fee agreements.

18.12 Beamish’s conduct goes way beyond anything remotely acceptable as truthful or fair reporting. He has even resorted to criminal conduct in unlawfully obtaining copies of an RBP Directors’ personal bank account statements, in a desperate effort to dig up the dirt he thrives on. Pathetically, and presumably so as to try and create some semblance of respectability, his every email has attached to it full details of a minor, and probably the only award he has ever received some time ago. It appears that other than some sporadic and vitriolic attacks on companies and individuals in MoneyWeb, (a failing publication which recently lost millions), and the occasional article in Noseweek, he is otherwise not observed to be gainfully employed. 

18.13 RBP’s investigations are that Beamish having apparently tired of what he continually refers to as fifth world South Africa, spends much time in his villa in the south of France from where he continues to spew venom, and to telephone RBP client’s, seeking to incite them against RBP.  See affidavit by one such client Martha Kock.Annexure 22 - Affidavit by Martha Kock - click here to read

19. CONCLUSION

19.1  RBP has a forty year unblemished record, of exceptional service to clients, ethical conduct, and fearlessness in representing clients’ interests above all. Despite the unrelenting attacks by Discovery and its cronies, the Practice will not be intimidated, and will not cease from doing what the Directors and Professional staff believe to be in clients’ interests.

19.2 The Law Society issued a certificate, certifying that there has NEVER SINCE THE PRACTICE WAS ESTABLISHED FORTY YEARS AGO, ever been any finding of unprofessional conduct against any of the Directors. 

Annexure 23- Certificate of 40 year unblemished record issued to RBP Inc. by the Law Society - click here to read

                                                 

19.3  It should also be noted that there is ONLY ONE COMPLAINT, AGAINST RBP, BEFORE A LAW SOCIETY DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE. It is of course the contrived and false Graham complaint referred to in paragraph 9 above, and which the Law Society has expressly recognized in affidavits filed in Court, to be a matter where Attorney George Van Niekerk of Edward Nathan, Cape Town, instructed and paid by Discovery, is using to further Discovery’s interests against RBP.  As previously stated RBP is eager, despite Van Niekerk twice engineering postponements thereof, for the Law Society hearing of the so called Graham complaint to take place, so that the Grahams give vive voce evidence and face cross examination in respect thereof.

20. After van Niekerks court application brought in the name of RBP former client Mr Graham and his wife aganist RBP, Ronald Boborff, Darren Bobroff and the Law Society was effectively dismissed by the court save for one minor order, van Niekerk desperately continued to harrass the Law Society in a largely futile effort to manipulate it into serving as his and Discoverys instrument in the furtherance of Discovery's vendetta against Ronald and Darren Bobroff. Van Niekerks frustration grew even greater when an inspection of RBP's records in respect of the two clients captured by van Niekerk and Millar - Graham and de la Guerre, as also RBP's trust accounts yielded little to please van Niekerk and RBP's comprehensive repsonse to such audit report was accepted by the Law Society to such an extent that it simply referred the audit report and RBP's response to the legal official dealing with van Niekerks contrived complaint.

21. When van Niekerks efforts proved largely futile, and now emboldened by a court ruling in 2013, that the Law Society's common law contigency fee agreements, rulings and agreements entered into between attorneys and their clients, in accordance with such rulings were invalid, van Niekerk in collusion with Anthony Millar to whom Discovery had sent some of its members who had benefitted from the work and risk of RBP in successfully concluding their personal injury claims and had been ethically charged Law Society compliant percentage fees ; now included "complaints" from such clients in a court application, almost identical to the first unsuccessful one, and now again launched against Ronald and Darren Bobroff, RBP Inc. and the Law Society. Again and as subsequent events have shown the omission of RBP second senior director Stephen Bezuidenhout was no accident ,and was specifically part of a divide and rule strategy, by van Niekerk and Millar.

22. After the application was delivered to the law society in April 2015, the law society instructed its attorneys Mr Andre Blom of the firm Rooth and Wessels to prepare on its intructions, a response to such application. The affidavit prepared by Mr Blom for then President Madiba may be viewed below. However the most important paragraphs 7, 8 and 14 may be viewed by clicking on the links below. 

Paragraph 7 of President Madiba's affidavit - Click here to read 

Paragraph 8 of President Madiba's affidavit - Click here to read

Paragraph 14 of President Madiba's affidavit - Click here to read

President Madiba's Affidavit - Click here to read

23. These paragraphs together with the 274 page affidavit clearly exposes that the application was a farce, and was not brought in reality by Mr Graham or his wife, was not brought in the so called public interest but was obviously a furtherance of Disocverys vendetta seeking vengeance against Ronald and Darren Bobroff for their courageous exposure, in the course of defending Practice clients against Discovery's fraud , bullying and harrassment.

24. However before the above affidavit could be signed and filed in court and delivered to van Niekerk by the Law Society, RBP was advised by its legal team, and it accepted such advice which was given in good faith, that the second application was an irregular step in terms of the rules of court that and that application should be made to court to have the application dismissed on that basis. After such an application was brought and opposing affidavits filed by van Niekerk (significantly complained by the Law Societys) it was always van Niekerk that made every affidavit in every single application brought by him on what he alleged was on the instrcutions of the Grahams, yet the Grahams never signed any of the substantive affidavits nor did they appear at any of the law society disciplinary hearings, nor at court at the many vexatious applications launched by van Niekerk against Ronald, Darren , RBP Inc and the Law Society).

25. RBPs legal team were informed a week before the date scheduled for the application to be heard,that a certain Judge would hear the application. However to everyones surprise 15 minutes before the matter was to be heard at the Pretoria High Court ,it was suddenly allocated to another judge, who heard the application and dismissed same. In his judgement not withstanding that the application was properly limited to the specific rule of court, the learned judge made reference to a whole range of matters and issues, which had no bearing on the limited and technical question to be decided in respect of the particular rule of court.

26. Meanwhile Discovery's attorneys Edward Nathan and proxy Anthony Millar ,had been putting in place a five step plan to hijack the Council of the Law Society and pack it with Discovery stooges. That corrupt process is described in detail on the website Bobroffronald.com and bobroff.online. The plot was successful and in October 2015 the Council of the Law Society fell under the effective control of Discovery Proxy's ,and to its eternal shame with Millar presiding as President.

Understandably the Discovery controlled Council presided over by Millar would hardly agree to the Law Society, now that the interim technical application had been finalised and the Law Society now being obliged to file its answering affidavit to the second application by van Niekerk; to the explosive Blom/President Madiba affidavit being signed and delivered to the court, RBP and van Niekerk. Initially an attempt was made to sanitize that affidavit by removing paragraph 14 thereof which clearly exposed the collusion between Millar, van Niekerk and Beamish in the furtherance of Discovery's vendetta against Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc. However even with paragraph 14 removed the affidavit, in paragraph 2.14 it made plain the fact that the application was an abuse of the court process and was filled with lies and misrepresentations, which would obviously cause great discomfort to Discovery, Millar, Beamish and van Niekerk if ever published. So the entire affidavit was simply discarded and replaced by a tailor made one in which a 360 degree turnabout occurred with the Law Society now simply parroting Discovery's tune and rather than standing up for principle and truth descended into attacking Ronald, Darren and RBP Inc., as was obviously to be expected now that the Council was controlled by Discovery.

Original paragraph 14 - Click here to read

Sanitized paragraph 14 - Click here to read

.

 

 

 

 

ISSUED BY RONALD BOBROFF & PARTNERS INC.

SCHEDULE OF ANNEXURES

ITEM

DETAILS

PAGE NO:

 1

Annexure 1 - Summary of the Provisions of the Medical Schemes Act  

34-37

 2

Annexure 2 – Rule 15.6.1 of Discovery’s letters forcing members to sign   

38-39

 3

Annexure 3 – Undertaking to Discovery Health

40-41

 4

Annexure 4 – Regulation 10 of the Medical Schemes Act regarding brokers

42

 5

Annexure 5 – Press release from GEMS removing the rule to reimburse the

43

 6

Annexure 6 – Undertaking in favour of Discovery which Mark Bellon was forced to sign

44

 7

Annexure 7 – Threatening letter by Jeffrey Katz to Law Society and disclosing major

45-46

 8

Annexure 8 – Affidavits by Discovery members Mark Bello, Dean Almeida, Ms. Vawda

47-61

 9

Annexure 9 – Statements of complaint against Katz by Mark Bello and Dean Almeida

62-73

 10

Annexure 10 – Letters by Houghton Harper to Discovery regarding Katz’s threats

74-77

 11

Annexure 11 – Extract of paper by Judge Malcolm Wallis

78

 12

Annexure 12 – Law Society’s ruling on the validity of common law contingency

79-86

 13

Annexure 13 – Common law fee agreement between Ms. De la Guerre and

87-89

 14

 Annexure 14 – Statements of account by Joseph’s Inc.

 90-101

 15

 Annexure 15 – Affidavits of touted clients and Millar’s tout Mr. Jabu Gxokwa   

 102-106

 16

 Annexure 16 – Affidavits of Hennie Scholtz and Jacque de Klerk 

 107-111

 17

 Annexure 17 – Photos of Discovery’s Katz with De La Guerre and Berger and Millar

 112-114

 18

 Annexure 18 – Letter sent by Berger and Millar attempting to tout / solicit

115-116a

 19

 Annexure 19 – Common Law Contingency Fee Agreements of other

 116b-119

20

Annexure 20 - Business Day article

120-122

21

Annexure 21 – Report by James Styan in FinWeek

123-125

22

Annexure 22 – Affidavit by Martha Kock

126-129

 23

Annexure 23 – Certificate of 40 year unblemished record issued to

 130

24

Annexure 23A - Discovery letter to RBP Clients

131

Law Society affidavits dated 2012 - 2015, fingering Discovery, as being behind the vendetta against Ronald ,Darren and RBP, accusing Discovery attorney George Van Niekerk of Edward Nathan ,and RBP ex client Mr Graham and his wife of perjury, and of being used as pawns by Discovery in the furtherance of its vendetta; before Discovery and its attorneys ENS infiltrated the council of the Law Society in October 2015 and since then used it to serve Discovery's agenda against Ronald, Darren and RBP.

Katz's threat to Darren on June 16 2015, that "complaints against Millar to the law society would go no where, as Discovery was in control of the disciplinary department", appear to have substance, as was the case with all the other threats made by Katz, including that "Millar will be your next President".