Attorneys in South Africa operate under strict ethical guidelines set by the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, the Rules, and the Code of Conduct. These rules ensure that legal professionals maintain fairness, integrity, and professionalism in court proceedings.
A recurring issue arises when an unrepresented person, unfamiliar with legal procedures, submits an intention to defend a lawsuit in an incorrect format - such as sending a simple email stating, "I want to defend the matter". This raises questions about the role attorneys should play in such situations. Should an attorney acknowledge this as an attempt to engage with the legal process, or is strict adherence to procedural requirements the only acceptable course?
The Ethical Tightrope for Attorneys
Attorneys have a primary duty to the court, ensuring that all legal proceedings adhere to prescribed rules. They also owe a duty to their clients, which includes acting in their best interests without creating conflicts of interest. When an unrepresented person submits an informal intention to defend, attorneys are placed in a difficult position. Procedural non-compliance could result in a default judgment, even where there was a clear indication of an intention to participate in the legal process.
The Responsibility of Laypersons: When Ignorance Isn’t an Excuse
People who choose to represent themselves assume responsibility for complying with procedural rules, even if they do not fully understand them.
However, strict reliance on procedure and format, over substance may have serious consequences:
The court may grant default judgment, as a properly filed intention to defend was never submitted.
The layperson may be required to bring a rescission application, which is costly, time-consuming, and uncertain.
A valid defense may be lost, not on the merits, but due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Legal procedures exist to ensure order and predictability. However, where the system becomes inaccessible due to strict procedural enforcement, there is a risk that substantive justice is not served. Striking the right balance is a challenge.
Ethical Considerations vs. Legal Formalities
This issue highlights a broader ethical dilemma within legal practice:
Duty to the court: Does an attorney have an obligation to raise the issue of an improperly formatted or procedurally incorrect intention to defend?
Access to justice: Should attorneys advocate for procedural fairness in cases where laypersons have clearly expressed their intent to participate in proceedings?
Practical consequences: Strict procedural adherence may lead to cases being won or lost on technicalities rather than on the merits of the dispute.
Seeking Perspectives: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?
The intersection of ethics and procedural rules remains a complex issue. Procedural certainty ensures efficiency and fairness, but it also presents challenges for unrepresented parties who may not fully grasp legal formalities. If attorneys are to play a role in addressing these gaps, the question arises: to what extent should they intervene?
Should attorneys acknowledge a clear but improperly formatted intention to defend in the interest of justice, or should procedural rules be applied without exception, even if it results in an unfair default judgment?
This issue continues to challenge legal practitioners and the courts. What are your thoughts on balancing ethics, fairness, and procedural compliance?
Comments