Latest news with #LegalProfession
Malay Mail
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Secrecy of JAC proceedings must not be compromised — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 7 — Acting Chief Justice Datuk Seri Hasnah Hashim had reportedly called for an urgent meeting of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), according to sources. The unnamed source stated that the meeting was scheduled for 3pm on July 4, despite Section 13(2) of the JAC Act 2009 requiring at least 10 days' written notice to be given to commission members. 'The purpose of the urgent meeting is unclear,' a source said. It is concerning that the sources cited Section 13(2) of the JAC Act but ignored Section 32 of the same Act. Section 32 mandates and obligates every member, officer and servant of the JAC to secrecy in the course of his duties, whether during or after his tenure of office or employment. According to the author, the acting Chief Justice Datuk Seri Hasnah Hashim must act against the sources if they contravene Section 32. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa If the Acting Chief Justice had called for a meeting not in compliance with Section 13(2), then it is members of JAC who must raise it with the Acting Chief Justice. These members are no ordinary folks. They are learned people of the law. It is, again, concerning that the sources should disclose the alleged call for an urgent meeting to the media when Section 32(1) says that no member, officers and servants of JA 'shall disclose any information or document obtained by him in the course of his duties'. Section 34(4) says any person who contravenes the provision 'commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.' The Acting Chief Justice must act against the sources if they contravene Section 32. Secrecy of proceedings of JAC must not be compromised. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Mail & Guardian
13-06-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
The law is not neutral — it serves power or it serves the people
The recent court challenge by corporate law firms against the Legal Sector Code is more than a legal dispute, it represents a profound political and institutional crisis. It calls on all members of the legal fraternity, across every sector, to respond with clarity, conviction and courage. The law does not exist in a vacuum, untouched by our country's history, and neither should we. At the core of this legal challenge is a disturbing message that the inclusion of black people in key parts of the legal sector is bad for business. The use of law to defend elite power is nothing new — it has long been a tool for preserving exclusion in South Africa. From the legal justifications of apartheid to post-apartheid tactics of delay and obstruction, the legal profession has often stood guard over the gates of privilege. It is therefore unsurprising — though no less alarming — that this claim is now being made under oath, in a country where the majority is black. If this moment does not compel us to speak out, then perhaps we are complicit in the unequal future being forged in our name. As in every contested space, power does not yield without a contestation — it fortifies itself. The government's black economic empowerment code for the legal sector reveals that, three decades into democracy, these corporate law firms have not been able to self-regulate in a way that meaningfully includes black professionals at the highest levels. These same firms are adept at identifying black talent on university campuses, sitting on transformation committees, publishing polished equity reports and championing mentorship initiatives. Yet, when real accountability is required and they are asked to disrupt entrenched patterns of opportunity, democratise access to work for smaller firms or transparently report on transformation progress, they recoil, and compliance is then framed as a threat to their freedom to trade. This is not a principled stand; it is a calculated defence of privilege. It exposes a profession more committed to the appearance of transformation than to its substance. While these corporate law firms tie transformation in red tape and legal technicalities, we must remember that the Constitution is not neutral. It is a charter for total social transformation and it commits South Africa to a future rooted in social justice, human dignity, equality and freedom for all. It rejects all forms of racism and sexism and it demands that we all play a role in building an inclusive society. We must abandon the romantic notion that the Constitution will do the work on its own. As a transformative charter, it demands action — not from some anonymous public, but from the very institutions and professions that now invoke it to escape accountability. Section 22 of the Constitution protects the right to choose one's profession and it was never meant to entrench monopoly power. Yet, in the hands of some corporate firms, it is being used to stall transformation and delegitimise a fair redistribution of opportunity. When a fraternity sees the very Constitution born of struggle being used to shield privilege, the bitter irony must not go uncontested because corporate law firms are not exempt from confronting the dissonance between constitutional ideals and the lived realities of South African society. The rule of law must never be weaponised to preserve an unjust social order. If these firms truly valued legal integrity and constitutional governance, they would have embraced transformation long ago. They've had more than 30 years and have consistently chosen not to. Similarly, had they attended to meaningful transformation, government intervention would not be necessary. Similarly, Kathleen Dlepu, former chairperson of the Legal Practice Council, asked: 'What if the voices of resistance to the Legal Sector Code aren't just coming from the usual suspects? What if, behind the legal jargon and procedural masks, we find the fingerprints of those who once pledged allegiance to transformation, not as outsiders, but from within?' Her words force uncomfortable questions: Who signed these court papers? Which senior counsel is willing to lend their name to this gatekeeping? Which junior counsel, allegedly the future, is being showcased as window dressing while undermining black advancement? These questions matter because law is never neutral. It either serves power or it serves the people and the South African story requires that the law is used for the good of the people. The entire legal fraternity bears a social responsibility to take a clear and public stance on what is unfolding. The disproportionate stranglehold on transformation maintained by firms that built their power during the darkest chapters of this country's history must be called into question. We cannot look to institutions that profited from the systemic exclusion of black people to lead us into a just future especially when their messages, no matter who delivers them, ultimately undermine the legitimacy of black practitioners. Transformation is not a favour; it is a constitutional imperative that rests on all stakeholders. This is a moment for clarity — not compromise. The legal profession cannot continue to obscure its failings behind rhetoric. It cannot claim nobility while actively defending structural exclusion and those of us who believe in the Constitution's vision must be willing to call this out for what it is — a crisis of legitimacy. Beneath the veneer of constitutional argument lies a longstanding truth — the powers that control corporate law in South Africa hold the view that transformation in the legal profession is, and has always been, treated as optional. Similarly, this is a moment to acknowledge that entry into elite corporate law circles has often required silence about the racial inequalities that continue to shape our profession. People died for this democracy. Scores of people willingly and unwillingly gave up their singular human experiences in the name of the idea that, one day, this country would not require the well-being and prosperity of black people as a sacrifice for a firm to remain in business. We cannot let those sacrifices happen in vain. Bwanika Lwanga is a corporate and commercial attorney and a columnist with an interest in African regional trade, spatial justice and social justice issues. Abongile Nkamisa is a lawyer and legal researcher interested in corporate accountability, access to information and law to advance social justice.
Reuters
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Attorney General Bondi's brother loses election to lead Washington DC bar
June 9 (Reuters) - Brad Bondi, the brother of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, has lost his bid to lead Washington's attorney bar association after an unusually closely-watched election that drew record turnout from the U.S. capital's 120,000 lawyers. Bondi, a partner and co-chair of the investigations and white-collar defense practice at law firm Paul Hastings, lost the race to serve as bar president to Diane Seltzer, an employment law attorney at The Seltzer Law Firm. D.C. Bar CEO Robert Spagnoletti announced the results on Monday after a race that the group said drew a record 38,600 ballots, up from 7,500 in the last election. Seltzer secured more than 90 percent of the vote, Spagnoletti said. Bondi in a statement said "although I did not prevail, I stand with a heart full of gratitude and a mind heavy with concern for the future of the D.C. Bar." He said he was "disgusted by how rabid partisans lurched this election into the political gutter, turning a professional campaign into baseless attacks, identity politics, and partisan recrimination." Seltzer in a statement said the result showed that Washington's lawyers care about "maintaining the rule of law, being able to practice law without fear of retaliation, and having a leader who is experienced and has the qualifications to be in that position.' Some lawyers in Washington had issued warnings on social media that a Bondi victory could imperil the bar's independence, urging members to vote for Seltzer. Bondi said before the results were announced that he had run a non-partisan campaign for an apolitical post. Membership in the association is mandatory for D.C. lawyers. The group's 23-person board, of which the president is a member, plays a limited role in enforcing ethics rules for attorneys by recommending members to sit on a separate panel that oversees the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Bondi's candidacy rattled some lawyers due to his ties to the Trump administration. His sister, the attorney general, is a loyalist to President Donald Trump and has echoed some of Trump's false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Trump in March directed Pam Bondi to refer lawyers and law firms for disciplinary action if they appeared to violate professional conduct rules. That directive was part of an executive order that accused immigration lawyers of coaching their clients to lie. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, created by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, has authority to investigate attorney misconduct and to recommend suspending or disbarring lawyers. It pursued several cases against attorneys involved in efforts to overturn Trump's defeat to Democrat Joe Biden during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The appeals court can reject recommendations from the bar association's board, and the bar's president cannot sway investigatory decisions, according to Spagnoletti. Voting in the D.C. Bar election began on April 15, after Trump launched a pressure campaign on the U.S. legal industry through executive orders against law firms with ties to his legal or political adversaries.
CNN
09-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Brother of AG Pam Bondi and a former Ed Martin aide lose bid to take over DC Bar
Bradley Bondi, the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, overwhelmingly lost his bid to be the next president of the DC Bar in a closely watched election that drew national attention, the organization announced Monday. The powerful organization plays a limited role in enforcing ethics rules, but critics of President Donald Trump raised concerns over Bondi running the group at a time of increasing tension between the legal profession and the Trump administration. Diane Seltzer, an employment law attorney who ran on a platform of supporting members during a time of 'great uncertainty' won the election receiving 34,982 votes. Bondi garnered 3,490 votes. 'I trusted that our members would elect a president-elect who they know will be fierce for them and hear them with respect to the issues that matter [to them],' Seltzer said after learning about the election results. Alicia Long, a former adviser to Trump US Attorney nominee Ed Martin and who now serves as principal DC US Attorney under Jeanine Pirro, also lost decisively in a bid to be the treasurer of the organization. The failed bids of Trump allies Bondi and Long come as the Trump administration has targeted top law firms in the country with executive orders, directing them to stop hiring employees, suspending their security clearances and stopping them from doing business with the federal government. 'I am disgusted by how rabid partisans lurched this election into the political gutter, turning a professional campaign into baseless attacks, identity politics, and partisan recrimination. Never before has a DC Bar election been leveraged along partisan lines in this way, an explicit call for members to vote based not on what's best for the institution but according to their political affiliations,' Bondi said in a statement provided to CNN on the outcome of the DC Bar election. 'Their tactics, which included smearing me over my family and peddling conspiracies about my intentions, were not just an assault on my integrity but on the D.C. Bar's very mission.' According to the press release from the DC Bar, there were over 89,000 members of the DC bar eligible to vote in this year's election. The organization received a 43% member turnout for the election.
CNA
26-05-2025
- CNA
Woman who acted as a lawyer when she did not have a practising certificate pleads guilty
SINGAPORE: Despite not having a practising certificate, a former lawyer pretended that she could still represent clients in legal proceedings and give legal advice. Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, was not authorised to act as a lawyer due to a bankruptcy order, but did so and charged two clients close to S$40,000 (US$31,200) in legal fees. The Singaporean has since been struck off as a lawyer following disciplinary proceedings. On Monday (May 26), Chia pleaded guilty to one charge under the Legal Profession Act for falsely claiming that she was authorised to act as a lawyer, and to one count of cheating. Two similar charges will be taken into consideration for her sentencing, which was adjourned to Friday. FIRST VICTIM SOUGHT ADVICE ON SON'S CARE, CUSTODY Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors on Aug 11, 1999, but did not have a practising certificate from Dec 17, 2016, to May 30, 2018, due to a bankruptcy order made against her. The order was annulled on May 22, 2018. On Dec 18, 2016, a woman emailed Chia to arrange for a consultation on matters relating to the care and custody of her son. This victim resolved the issues without Chia's involvement, but contacted Chia again in August 2017 after disputes arose with her son's father. She then engaged Chia as a lawyer. Chia did not have a practising certificate but concealed that fact. On Aug 25, 2017, Chia met the woman and collected S$2,000 in legal fees. Between Oct 12, 2017, and Nov 9, 2017, Chia gave the victim legal advice on a court application related to the custody and care matters. Chia also drafted supporting affidavits and vetted summons for the court application. The court application was filed on Nov 9, 2017, in the Family Justice Courts under another lawyer's name. Chia deliberately excluded her name as she knew she was not authorised to act for the woman. Later, the victim wanted Chia to attend a mediation session for the care and custody matters, and Chia finally told her that she was an undischarged bankrupt. However, Chia made it seem that her bankruptcy order had been set aside. She continued to give the impression that she was authorised to act as the woman's lawyer. During a text message exchange on Mar 22, 2018, the woman sent Chia a text stating: "I was so worried you wouldn't get (a practising certificate) in time and I had to last minute find another lawyer. "I trust only you to represent me," she added. Chia simply replied: "Don't panic." She did not come clean about her lack of a practising certificate. Chia then got another lawyer to attend the woman's court hearing on Apr 11, 2018, despite promising the victim that she would attend the hearing. She asked the same lawyer to attend a court hearing on May 8, 2018, to collect the judgment for the woman's case, and avoided meeting the woman near the court. "The accused suggested that they meet elsewhere and told (the woman) that there may be a delay in collecting the judgment even on the 'decision day' as some judges would ask parties to provide more information (on) various issues," court documents stated. In total, Chia collected S$13,685.60 from the woman in legal fees and disbursements. SECOND VICTIM A FRIEND GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE Chia was friends with the second victim, who approached her for legal help for divorce proceedings on around Feb 12, 2018. This woman wanted to apply for a personal protection order. The two met the next day, and the victim engaged Chia to act for her. Chia hid her lack of practising certificate from this victim. She quoted the victim S$20,000 in legal fees, which she described as a "friend rate" that was a third of her usual rates. She told the victim about her follow-up steps for the legal proceedings and asked for a cash payment of S$3,000 as a deposit. Eventually, on Chia's advice, an application for an expedited order for the victim's personal protection order was filed. Chia again got another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this application. The victim voiced her concerns about this other lawyer's performance in court, as he seemed to be unfamiliar with her case, but Chia reassured the victim that they were working on the case together. The victim paid S$23,000 to Chia on May 2, 2018, in the form of a cash cheque. In total, the victim forked out S$26,000 before she found out through a Straits Times article that Chia was a bankrupt facing disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary tribunal was later appointed to hear and investigate a complaint of misconduct against Chia. On Oct 26, 2021, the disciplinary tribunal found that the charges against Chia were made out. Chia was struck off on Aug 15, 2022. She made full restitution to the two victims in January 2025. Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay sought six to 12 months' jail for Chia. She said that Chia had offended for a long period of nine months, and showed premeditation in her actions. CLIENT HAD DEPRESSION DUE TO PAST CASES HANDLED Chia's lawyer Nicholas Jeyaraj Narayanan highlighted Chia's personal circumstances in mitigation. Mr Narayanan said his client, who had specialised in family law, had been suffering from depression due to two tragic incidents involving her clients. Chia had been the lawyer of a woman whose son was killed by his father in 2015. "In the aftermath of the tragedy, there were murmurings in the Family Bar that the affidavit that our client had drafted for (the boy's mother) was the final straw that drove the father to take the life of his son the day after he was served with the mother's affidavit," said the defence counsel. "Our client did not know what to make of the foregoing murmurings, but it made her feel deeply responsible that she played a part in the father's actions to suffocate his son." He added that Chia had advised the mother to give the father overnight access to their son. While reluctant, the mother had followed her advice. It was during this access time that the father killed the boy. Chia blamed herself for this, wondering if the boy would still be alive if she had advised her client differently, Mr Narayanan said. "She prayed to cope, but the overwhelming guilt kept coming back to her," he said. "She had her own young daughter, and the pain a mother undergoes over the loss of a child cannot be described." The second tragedy was in 2016 when a female client she represented was slashed by her ex-husband. In 2016, the mother in the 2015 case filed a complaint against Chia for overcharging her in legal fees, but this was dismissed. However, the proceedings added to Chia's emotional distress. In her application to annul her bankruptcy order, Chia said the culmination of both these cases resulted in her being complacent and careless about her affairs. A psychiatrist stated in a report that Chia "probably suffered from post-traumatic stress symptoms" following the incidents. "However, the severity and incapacity of her symptoms could not be ascertained as a professional clinician did not evaluate her then," added Mr Narayanan. He also noted that one of Chia's clients started harassing her in June 2020, forcing Chia to file a protection order against her. This client "dredged up the 2015 tragedy", causing Chia to suffer a panic attack, the lawyer said. This client sent harassing messages, including: "You caused a five-year-old boy to lose his life. You also tried to ruin my son's life. I will see that you suffer your doomed fate behind bars."
