When legal turns on legal, all suffer

WHEN advocates sue attorneys, something deeper than a fee dispute is at play.

- 

It signals that the professional bond designed to serve justice has started to fray. And when that bond fails, the ripple effects reach far beyond the chambers - they reach the client. For people already under strain, that discord becomes another wound. The law meant to protect them instead exhausts them.

This isn’t theoretical. Recent matters on the rolls show colleague-against-colleague disputes:

• Diederichs v Ravele (Gauteng, 2023) — Advocate sued for outstanding fees; attorney alleged delayed or incomplete work.

• Solomon v Junkeeparsad (Durban, 2022) - Advocate sought payment on multiple matters; court reaffirmed that attorneys are legally responsible for paying counsel once briefs are issued.

• Maite v Borman Duma Zitha Attorneys (Johannesburg, 2023) -— Advocate claimed unpaid invoices; the firm argued duplication and disagreement on rates.

• Dayanand-Jugroop v Ngento (Gauteng, 2024) - Advocate sued for fees; attorney alleged overreaching.

These are only some of the visible ones. Beyond the law reports, similar disputes are filed and then resolved before judgment - settled at the door, withdrawn, or diffused after preaction letters.

They leave no precedent - only delay, cost, and distrust that practitioners across chambers know too well. Judicial sentiment has been blunt for years: it is, as one judgment put it, “a sad day for the legal profession” when professional conduct fails its own standards.

How we got here