Office of the Legal Services Ombud capacitation and funding

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

09 November 2022
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

In a virtual meeting, the Office of the Legal Services Ombud briefed the Committee on its goal and mandate, its achievements since its inception in June 2022, and its future financial needs and plans.

Members asked questions about the Office’s role in South Africa’s legal oversight system and how its function differed from that of the Legal Practitioners Council. They asked about its complaints handling procedure, office accommodation, and its reach beyond the Gauteng and Western Cape provinces where it had offices.

Meeting report

Mr V Seroka, acting Director, Office of the Legal Services Ombud (OLSO), presented on behalf of the OLSO. He explained that the OLSO began operating on 15 June 2022 to advance and ensure ethical conduct in the legal profession, promote high standards of ethical and accountable work, and maintain independence in the profession. It was established in terms of Chapter 5 of the Legal Practice Act, 2014.

(see document for specific activities the OLSO is responsible for according to the Act).

The Office was currently sharing office space in Cape Town and Centurion with the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor and the Law Reform Commission respectively. It was in the process of procuring dedicated office space in Gauteng and the Western Cape.

At its inception, the OLSO was allocated a budget of R6.6m for the financial year 2021/2022. This amount broke down into a compensation budget of R3.4m and an operational budget of R2.2m. However, the Office had not been able to spend the full allocated budget during this year as it was in the process of establishing itself. For the next financial year, the OLSO would request additional funding to bring its total budget to R7.7m, (compensation R4.2m, operational R3.5m).

The OLSO had drafted the following documents relating to its future operations: a five-year Strategic Plan, a Service Delivery Model, human resources (HR) and finance policies, complaints management processes, a functional structure, and an organisational structure. These documents were set to be finalised and approved before the start of the new financial year.

Since beginning operations, the OLSO had already noted some trends, notably that most complaints came from Gauteng and the Western Cape. Out of the 71 complaints received since its inception, 51 had come from these provinces. The Office planned to use this data to establish standard practices going forward. Additionally, they planned to use these trends to identify regions that needed further resources and regions that needed awareness-raising campaigns.

Discussion
Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) congratulated the team on the work done so far. She asked whether the Office had considered, for financial prudence, occupying buildings designated for government purposes instead of leasing private space.

She asked what types of complaints they received and why most came from Gauteng and the Western Cape.

She asked whether members of the legal profession were able to complain to the Office about fellow legal practitioners, and how long the turnaround time was for complaints lodged with the Office.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) asked how many people were currently employed by the OLSO and where they were based.

She asked why the Office requested more money for 2022/23 given that it had not exhausted its 2021/22 budget. She suggested using those funds and then requesting further funding as and when the need arose.

She asked how its handling of complaints differed from the National Bar Council and the Legal Practice Council (LPC), and whether it only followed up on issues referred to by the public or was proactive in looking for misconduct. She also asked how a complaint was finalised.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) asked which communities the OLSO was going to focus on in their awareness campaigns, and what plans they had for reaching communities that were difficult to reach and had limited resources.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked how accessible and visible the Office was to the public outside of Gauteng and the Western Cape where they had offices. She noted that they used radio to market themselves and asked what other avenues they were using to spread awareness, and which languages they used in these endeavours. She also asked how many of the 71 complaints received to date had been resolved.

The Chairperson asked why the Assistant Director in finance of the OLSO was positioned below the deputy-director level, the norm for government entities. He said that this would limit their authority to make difficult decisions.

Responses
Mr Ramoroka Godfrey, Head: Legal Services and Investigations, OLSO, replied that the nature of complaints received varied because of the various legal processes that could be engaged in at different levels. Legal practitioners were allowed to complain about their peers, and the LPC as well. He explained that the Legal Practice Act had come into effect to formalise the legal structures of the country. Whereas in the past, law societies had regulated themselves provincially, the Legal Practice Act had brought in nationwide regulation managed by the LPC in every province. The LPC was the regulatory body and OLSO was an oversight institution for the legal profession.

He said that the ombud could investigate on its own initiative, in line with its mandate to promote high professional standards, and it did look at trends in the legal profession, but most of its work was responding to complaints, as these pointed to specific issues. At the same time, it did try to avoid duplication with the LPC and also did refer some complaints to the LPC as it was currently better equipped to take on certain investigations. He added that the OLSO did not have an appeal authority over the LPC. Thus, if a complainant was unhappy with the outcome of an LPC ruling, they could appeal to the High Court – which was very costly and time-consuming – or they could wait to lodge an appeal in terms of the not-yet-active sections 37 and 41 of the Legal Practice Act.

Mr Seroka said ten employees were currently divided between Gauteng and the Western Cape. He acknowledged that the 2021/2022 budget had been underutilised. However, the compensation budget had been fully spent and there was a need for additional funding for this going forward to enable the Office to employ more personnel. The Office was considering the possibility of utilising government buildings instead of renting private space.

He said that one of the reasons the ombud had been created was that there was a sense that legal practitioners investigating each other would try to protect each other for the sake of the profession’s image. The ombud was there to monitor the investigation processes as well because some of the complaints were also against the LPC and how they conducted or failed to conduct investigations.

Mr Seroka said that the Assistant Director in finance was temporary until the OLSO was fully independent of the Department of Justice.

Further discussion
Adv Breytenbach asked for further clarity on the complaints handling procedure and the difference in the role of the LPC and the OLSO.

Mr Godfrey explained that there might be some overlap in the functions of the two bodies. However, in the main, the LPC was a regulatory body of the legal profession, while the OLSO was an oversight body whose mandate included oversight of the LPC. In terms of section 48(1) of the Legal Practice Act, the OLSO was competent to investigate any misapplication of the Act itself.

He outlined the procedure followed when complainants brought matters to the Office that were outside its mandate. He said that if a complainant elected to wait for the promulgation of sections 37 and 41 to lodge an appeal with the LPC, the OLSO would monitor the progress of this appeal. He said that one of the milestones the Office had achieved was the completion of a database of laypersons who would provide an outside voice in monitoring disputes within the legal profession.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked whether legal practitioners were able to approach the OLSO to help settle disputes among themselves.

Mr Seroka replied that they could. They could also bring complaints about the LPC.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked what the turnaround time for complaints was.

Mr Godfrey said that at the moment, the standard turnaround time for finalising a complaint was three months. The Office was still formulating its protocols of best practice and looking for ways to speed up processing.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: