By Mapula Sedutla –  acting editor

Having worked at De Rebus for the past four years, first as production editor and then as deputy editor, taking on the role of acting editor is a welcomed challenge. The De Rebus team and I are dedicated to producing a journal that will continue to cover topical important issues in the law profession. Please feel free to contact me at mapula@derebus.org.za with your views or suggestions.

After the reader survey

Results of our 2013 reader survey highlighted readers’ need for content that is more practical in nature. In the near future the journal will be implementing some of your suggested changes and we welcome any further suggestions on topics to be covered in the journal, as well as any other changes to make De Rebus a more useful tool for you in your practice. Suggestions can be e-mailed to mapula@derebus.org.za.

Readers have also asked for themed issues, that is, issues dedicated to one area of law. Although it may seem like a good idea, themed issues are not feasible as that would mean attorneys that are not practising in an area of law covered in a particular issue, will not find much of relevance in De Rebus that month.

We have also noted comments on the difficulty of using De Rebus Digital. We will be introducing a guide that will be sent with the digital version, but readers who require assistance on using De Rebus Digital can e-mail kathleen@derebus.org.za.

• For a summary of the reader survey see 2013 (July) DR
• For the complete reader survey see www.derebus.org.za

Legal Practice Bill

The Legal Practice Bill continues to be hotly debated at the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development level and in the profession. We continue to follow these discussions with close interest as does our publisher, the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA). Although submissions on the Bill are closed, the LSSA has made itself available to the Portfolio Committee and the Justice Department to clarify issues that relate directly to the profession where further clarity may expedite the Bill. The LSSA has highlighted the following areas of concern:

• Fees: The setting of fees should fall within the mandate of the envisaged National Legal Practice Council (NLPC).
• Conveyancing: The conveyancing process is complex and requires a thorough knowledge and understanding of the relevant legislation, therefore the LSSA is of the view that it is in the public’s interest that conveyancers must be practising attorneys.
• Visits to universities by representatives of the NLPC: This will ensure that law graduates are able to acquire the correct knowledge, skills and values to be properly equipped to serve the public when they enter the profession. This was also highlighted at the recent LLB summit (see 2012 (July) DR 8).
• Multidisciplinary practices: The LSSA is of the view that the current enabling clause in the Bill is sufficient. However, although the LSSA supports, in some aspects, multidisciplinary practices, it is opposed to alternative business structures.
• Direct briefing of advocates by members of the public provided advocates have Fidelity Fund certificates: The LSSA is not convinced that, if advocates choose to take briefs direct from the public and have trust accounts for money received from the public as well as the accompanying Fidelity Fund certificate, this will reduce legal fees as advocates will be obliged to acquire the necessary infrastructure to maintain, control and manage trust accounts.

Mapula Sedutla, mapula@derebus.org.za

This article was first published in De Rebus in 2013 (Aug) DR 3.