Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, hon members of the House and guests in the gallery, the ANC supports this Bill.
My focus is going to be on fees in respect of legal services. The purpose of the Legal Practice Bill is to provide a legislative framework for the transformation and restructuring of the legal profession that embraces the values underpinning the Constitution. The committee is aware of the many fees-related complaints.
The Bill recognises the importance of access to affordable legal services for realisation by South Africans of freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. While seeking to attain these objectives, the Bill recognises the independence of the legal profession and seeks to strengthen independence that should entrench the principles of transparency and accountability.
Clause 35 of the Legal Practice Bill focuses on fees in respect of litigious and nonlitigious legal services rendered by legal practitioners, juristic entities, law clinics and Legal Aid South Africa. In terms of the provision of this Act, fees must be in accordance with the tariffs established by the Rules Board for Courts of Law as established in section 2 of the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act of 1985. The Rules Board for Courts of Law must, when determining, for example, the tariffs, look at the importance, significance, complexities and expertise of the legal services required; the seniority and experience of the legal practitioners concerned; the volume of work required and the time spent in respect of the legal services rendered; and the financial implications of the matter at hand.
The Bill also supports the idea that nothing precludes any user of litigious or nonlitigious legal services, on his or her own initiative, from agreeing with a legal practitioner in writing to paying fees for services in excess of or below any tariff determined as contemplated in clause 35 of the Bill.
Within two years after the commencement of this Act, the South African Law Reform Commission must investigate and report back to the Minister with recommendations on the following: The manner in which to address the circumstances giving rise to legal fees that are attainable to most people, which is a point of contention; legislative and other interventions in order to improve access to justice by the members of the public; the desirability of establishing a mechanism which will be responsible for determining fees and tariffs payable to legal practitioners; the composition of the mechanism contemplated and processes to be followed in determining fees and tariffs; the desirability of giving users of legal services the option of voluntarily agreeing to pay fees for legal services, less or in access of any amount that may be set by the contemplated mechanism; and the obligation by the legal practitioner to conclude a mandatory fee agreement with a client, when he or she secures that legal practitioner's service. This is quite a good mechanism to ensure that the public is protected in respect of the type of fees that will be charged when they seek legal services.
In conducting this investigation into fees, the SA Law Reform Commission must take the following into consideration: The best international practices; public interests; and the interests of the legal profession itself. This is something that we need to note, because the impression has been created that the Bill itself is taking away the independence of the legal profession.
The Bill also makes provision for the Minister to determine maximum tariffs payable to legal practitioners who are instructed by any state department, provincial or local government in any matter. This is done just to control fees in that area. An attorney or advocate who is rendering litigious or nonlitigious legal services must provide the client with cost estimates in writing, specifying all particulars relating to the envisaged costs of legal services, including fees, charges, disbursements, hourly rates and an explanation to the client of his or her right to negotiate the fees payable.
The attorney must also outline work to be done in respect of each stage of the litigation process, and the likelihood of engaging an advocate, as well as an explanation of different fees that can be charged by different advocates. This should be done in writing or explained verbally by an attorney.
All these indicate that things are now changing in South Africa. We are now reaching a stage where legal services will be affordable. People will not enter into agreements with lawyers for fees that they do not understand and on processes that will unfold, that will end up being processes that are costly and that they did not actually know of or anticipate.
A client must agree to the envisaged legal services in writing. Noncompliance by an attorney or advocate to do that constitutes a misconduct, and the client will not be required to pay any legal costs to that attorney or advocate until the council has reviewed the matter and made a determination regarding the amounts to be paid. This provision does not preclude the use of contingency fee agreements as provided for in the Contingency Fees Act of 1997.
In conclusion, any change is stressful, and that is why the opposition is wary, but not of the unknown, because the Bill has been elaborately deliberated on by all parties in the committee over a very long time. Numerous written and verbal submissions from the public and the legal fraternity were received and engaged on. Best practices throughout the world were looked at. The change that will be brought about by this Bill is for fairness and the betterment of the lives of South Africans.
Of course, we will continue to acknowledge selective amnesia caused by manipulation of parliamentary debates to create a campaign platform for parties like Cope that want to give an impression that things aren't fine, in so doing creating an opportunistic platform that tries to turn the good that the ANC is doing into bad. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]