Mr Peter Horn is a long-standing member of the De Rebus Editorial Committee and a legal practitioner who has been dedicated and committed to the course of access to justice.
In the May edition of De Rebus, our monthly feature profiles the life and work of Mr Peter Horn – a long-standing member of the De Rebus Editorial Committee and a legal practitioner who has been dedicated and committed to the course of access to justice. Mr Horn was born in 1931 and is a lifelong resident of Kimberley. ‘I was raised in a relatively poor home. My father worked in the Post Office and my mother was a housewife. I was the youngest of three, having two elder sisters. My parents and siblings passed away many years ago, but I am blessed in having two great sons, Jonathan and Nicholas, four grandchildren and one great grandchild with another on the way – I am greatly blessed with my family. My father died in 1941 when I was ten or so,’ said Mr Horn.
Mr Horn attended Kimberley Boys’ High School and matriculated in 1948 with what in those days was referred to as a ‘first class pass’. ‘I had a wonderful childhood with many friends and much leisure time so we would – after our homework was done – get together as friends and play all sorts of games in the streets. There were no burglar bars on homes and in summer we slept out on the porches and even on the lawns with no fear of attack. Our doors and windows were left open and unlocked,’ Mr Horn added.
Mr Horn pointed out that from an early age his mother insisted that he join the public library (for free), and as a result he became and still is a prolific reader. ‘Our teachers were generally of an extremely high calibre some from abroad and were totally dedicated to their work. Cuts were often dealt out when warranted (even at home) and even the girls were subject to such punishment where they were given cuts with the flat of a ruler across their palms. I know not of a single case where cuts or a good hiding had a negative effect on the upbringing and mental state of a single child including myself, my siblings, and classmates throughout my school career,’ Mr Horn said.
Mr Horn said he believes the hierarchy is somewhat out of touch with reality and that people fail to realise the consequences for their words and actions. He added that today children can virtually do what they like and there are no consequences.
Mr Horn pointed out that when he matriculated on 3 December 1948, he had no job prospects. He noted that times were hard, and jobs few. ‘My eldest sister was great friends with a local attorney, Findlay Moult and that very evening he insisted and asked me what I was going to do. I replied that there was nothing for me on the table. That was the Damascus moment in my life. He said at 8:30am tomorrow morning you report at my office, and you are going to be an attorney. I had not the foggiest idea what an attorney was! But a job was a job, and I duly reported the next morning at 8.30am. All I possessed in relatively “smart” clothes and other possessions were one pair of shoes, two pairs of trousers, three or four shirts, one jacket, and a balloon-tyred bicycle,’ Mr Horn added.
Mr Horn said: ‘I reported for duty the next morning for my start in the legal profession. Wow! I was going to be an attorney! There was no money for university and so I did five years of articles and wrote what was then the examinations for such candidate attorneys, set and marked by the “Joint Committee for Professional Examinations”. I registered for lectures (hard copy) and studied in the evenings from Mondays to Fridays and played my sport and did my light reading on Saturdays and Sundays.
Mr Horn pointed out he was admitted as an attorney in the Western Cape Division on the 4 January 1968 (the court in Kimberley was a Local Division [the Griqualand West Local Division (GWLD)] – in effect a Local Division under the jurisdiction of the Western Cape Supreme Court). The GWLD could not, being a Local Division, do admissions. The Order was sent by post to the local magistrate in Kimberley before whom I took the oath of office. ‘I need to say a word about my Principal John George Findlay Moult. He was articled to Jack Lange who I believe was the son of Justice Lange. Findlay became my second father. He was one of nature’s gentlemen and taught me so much outside of law – he taught me about life. He typified an English gentleman and invariably dressed in black striped trousers, black shoes with spats, a grey felt waistcoat, black jacket and quiet tie, always wore a hat – a Trilby or more often than not a bowtie and carried a furled black umbrella and had a red carnation as a buttonhole – a typical English gentleman. He was one of the few Native Representatives on the Cape Provincial Council and periodically travelled to Cape Town for sittings, representing his constituents – our black people. Our office had an enormous black clientele. My parents had taught me that the colour of a person’s skin colour was irrelevant. We are all people. We grew up in an area inhabited by mixed colour groups and as children we were all friends and equals. We saw no colour. I had no transition to make. I grew up with that inculcated in me and never moved a fraction from that course.’
Mr Horn added that as an aside, being a Provincial Councillor, Mr Findlay received an invitation to the wedding of the late Queen Elizabeth II and attended the ceremony in Westminster Abbey. Special chairs upholstered in blue velvet were made for those attending, the backrest being embroidered on the blue velvet with the words: ‘Elizabeth II R’ and guests were permitted to take their chairs hence which Mr Findlay did. ‘One other thing he inculcated in me and that was absolute honesty, not just in life but particularly in the profession. His philosophy was that if you actually have to ask yourself whether you should do or write or say anything, the fact that you have to ask yourself the question is indicative of the fact that there is a problem, so don’t do it – always decide against yourself,’ Mr Horn said.
Kgomotso Ramotsho (KR): What significant changes in the legal profession occurred over your 70 years in practice?
Peter Horn (PH): Without a shadow of doubt there have been many – some good and some questionable. In my early days – even up to the late 1960’s – 1970’s – practice was relatively leisurely. There were fewer firms in the country and on a practical level very limited technology. One dictated your letters and documents to your secretary who took her notes in shorthand. Typing was done on a mechanical typing machine now seen only in Museums. If copies had to be made, there were no photocopy machines, your secretary used carbon paper between the sheets of blank paper and if she had to make a correction, she had to rub it out on the original and all the copies often resulting in a messy copy. The magistrates and judges were fully aware of the difficulties and never made an issue of it.
At morning and afternoon tea times, all staff, except the receptionist, stopped worked and had tea together in the staff tearoom. Clients often dropped in to visit whichever partner they were dealing with for a chat.
That is how I have lived my life and practiced law – all are equal.
The practice of law, like no other subject gifts you a general knowledge second to none. Whatever the subject matter in any case you are dealing with, you need to arm yourself with the technicalities of that particular subject – it could be medicine, which is covering an enormous field, architecture, building, accounting, farming, engineering and a great many more. It is a great teacher.
Without question the profession has made some profound changes since I started practice and has in many respects seen, in my view, a deterioration in many fields – ethics, even average literacy and numeracy skills, the art of courtesy to all, irrespective of status, and even basic knowledge in the basics of law.
There is a report by me as Cape Law Society (CLS) President in De Rebus critical of the Legal Practice Bills (there were many versions) (Philip van der Merwe and Bongi Mndebele ‘Lawyer slams Legal Practice Bill’ 2009 (Jan/Feb) DR 19). There were two pieces of legislation governing the separate professions of advocates and attorneys. Without doubt having two Acts, this was not a satisfactory situation. Yes, the practices do differ in many respects, but qualifications are the same and we are all legal practitioners. In my own mind the radical step of scrapping two Acts, which on their own worked well, it would have been far simpler to have consolidated the two Acts with chapters applicable to all and then chapters dealing separately with the two professions.
I had and have greater doubts than before of the creation of a new animal – advocates with a trust account. It is inconceivable how this could have been allowed. I serve on the Northern Cape Legal Practice Council (LPC) Disciplinary Committee. Advocates with trust accounts are obliged to submit trust audits to qualify for their next Fidelity Fund Certificates. Some of these advocates do not print audited trust financial statements to present to the LPC, alleging that they do not have to do so because they receive no trust funds from their direct client and only take money from a client once they have compiled their mandate. Draw your own conclusions. They have the best of both worlds – they can take work direct from the public and wearing the hat of an attorney and can also receive funds direct from a client (for payment into a trust account).
Some of such advocates no doubt do have a trust account and do receive trust monies into which trust funds are paid. I know of very few practising attorneys who accept a mandate from someone off the street, without asking for a deposit.
Today practice has changed radically due to technology where all we had when I started by way of technology was a Post Office, telephone on your desk and at your home, a simple adding machine, a manual typewriter, and your books were kept by a bookkeeper in long hand. The fastest means of communication was by telegram where you paid per word. There were no photocopying machines. In many ways practice was more leisurely, and you had more time to spend doing research by way of Law Reports and textbooks.
Practice today is high-pressure with the advent of technology. Previously your letters were sent by Post Office mail to the addressee – by airmail, if so marked, at extra cost. Today with computers and cell phones your letters are so sent and received by the recipient almost instantaneously. Your turnabout time putting your opposition to terms is now shortened and practitioners frequently find themselves under great pressure and stress. It is small wonder that more legal practitioners do not have nervous breakdowns. One sees much more of this than before.
In my opinion, the standards of competence have decreased – I say this in general terms as many young attorneys are quite brilliant and have coped well.
I think the turning point came when a decision was taken to reduce the LLB degree to four years. I was not supportive of this move. I served and still serve on the Standing Committee on Legal Education (SCLE), I was an examiner for a great many years. A time came when the Committee met with almost all of the Deans of Law Faculties in Stellenbosch. It was astonishing what came out of that meeting. What emerged was a strong view that people starting their first year of the first year LLB were ill-prepared to tackle the degree. What emerged further was that law lecturers spent a large part of the first year teaching students literacy and numeracy skills. Very few possessed adequate skills on this direction. The lecturers now having to cope with a 4-year LLB, had to spent part of that time teaching skills that should have been taught at school level and not for the lecturers to teach. In the time left the lecturers did the best they could but realistically inadequate time was left for them to deal with LLB subjects. There were of course exceptional students who even at school level had excelled in numeracy and literacy skills and had little difficulty in coping with the reduced LLB.
To sum up the problem lay and lies at school level. Our primary and secondary school standards have declined – I do not say this – statistics do. South Africa (SA) was one of the top countries in the field of primary and secondary school education and has deteriorated to a position near the bottom of the African table. With due respect it is my view that the standards in my lifetime have dropped dramatically. With good and firm leadership and radical changes this can be remedied, but it will take hard work and dedication to achieve, starting at school level.
In my early days of practice, there was a Bantu Divorce Court. Kimberley was in the jurisdiction of the Central Divorce Court based in Johannesburg, which went on circuit two or three times per year. Kimberley was one of the Circuit Court seats. My firm had a large Divorce Practice due primarily to the fact that my Principal was the elected Native representative in the Cape Provincial Council, for Griqualand West and environs. The court would sit for two days and the roll carried probably up to 100 or more cases. Seldom, other than the summons were any pleadings filed and matters defended or undefended were simply dealt with and finalised. Many litigants were represented by Kimberley attorneys and attorneys from elsewhere. I go back a step. In 1996, I was selected as Chairman for Southern Africa of an international service organisation with headquarters in Chicago. It had an enormous world-wide membership of millions. When Nelson Mandela was released and became a world-wide figure, the Board of Directors of this international organisation, which annually awarded a prestigious peace medal to world figures and in my years nominated Nelson Mandela. Mr Mandela (no doubt via his advisors) did not accept every award made and there were stringent protocols in place. However, he graciously agreed to accept the award and I was given the honour of presenting it to him. A date and time were fixed and the presentation was to take place at the then Shell House. Our delegation was limited to a handful of people as well as our time with him as he had a full schedule. On arrival it was made clear to us that time was of the essence and we had to abide by the time limit.
The presentation was relatively formal. I presented him with the medal and citation and it was time to leave. He shook hands with my group and when he came to me, he asked where I was from. I told him Kimberley. He asked what I did and I told him I was an attorney. The change in him was remarkable. He asked me about practice and naturally I mentioned that we had a large Black clientele and I appeared regularly in the Bantu Divorce Court. He then said something to the effect that he had appeared in the Kimberley Court and was sure that I represented the other party. I really could not recall this – it was of a time when he was not as prominent as he eventually became. He threw caution to the wind and invited us to a small lounge next door where he ordered tea for us despite the protests of an aide-de-camp. He sat next to me in one of the lounge chairs and we had probably about a half hour chat before he excused himself.
I regard that visit as one of the greatest in my entire life and realised the absolute charisma and charm of one of SA’s greatest people. What a privilege. I need to say a word about Robert Sobukwe. He was, like Mr Mandela, imprisoned at Robben Island. There he studied law and was admitted as an attorney. He was diagnosed with cancer and released but confined to Kimberley where he opened a practice which became massive. We often appeared against each other especially in the Bantu Divorce Court. We became not just colleagues but great personal friends. What a man. What a friend. I quote a short sentence from one of his speeches:
‘There is only one race to which we all belong, and that is the human race. In our vocabulary therefore, the word “race” as applied to man, has no plural form.’
Amen to that.
Mr Peter Horn with the first democratically elected President of
South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela in 1996.
KR: You once noted in your time at the Cape Law Society that you served under 14 presidents and six directors. What insights have you gained about leadership in the legal profession?
PH: The law and more particularly my involvement in professional bodies such as the Law Society has proved beyond doubt that an organisation is only as good as its leader. These are not my words but the words of a successful American businessman who lectured me and co-leaders in the service organisation I have referred to from other countries in New Orleans in 1978 on leadership. In a nutshell he said an organisation is only as good as its leader. This is without doubt true and we have seen it over the years in a myriad number of organisations including our own profession. One hears the nonsense from sports broadcasters that ‘the captain led from the front’. Please tell me how you would lead from the back.
Leadership is something that can be taught and learnt and being part of an organisation which has over many years had both good and poor leaders. Every leader should undergo some form of training – the do’s and don’t of leadership.
We had on occasion leaders who purported to lead but in fact were promoting other interests. Being the leader of the legal profession in SA is no easy task and a leader has to walk a fine line.
Even though I underwent a course in leadership so many years ago, I still learnt from our past and present leaders – one is never too old to learn.
Overall our profession has enjoyed good leadership and we should be grateful for this. There are many books on leadership and a potential leader could do a lot worse than reading one of these. I epitomise a good leader with the three ‘f’s’: firm, fair and forthright!
KR: What qualities do you think make a great legal practitioner, beyond just knowledge of the law?
PH: What makes a great lawyer. Opinions will of course differ. There are many very good lawyers but ‘great’ is a cut above the rest. These are not too many. What traits make a great lawyer? There must be so many – let me name a few I can think of: ethicality (there are no grey areas), exceptional knowledge of the law and where to find precedent, courtesy to all: The Bench, your client, your opponent, witnesses, the court orderly, in fact everyone, hard work (no matter how long it takes – there is no short cut), dignity, an air of quiet confidence, a good command of language and most importantly, brevity (this reminds of a story of a longwinded counsel at the Kimberley Bar who had cross-examined a witness for three days. As day three drew to a close, the judge asked him: ‘Mr … how long will you still be?’ Instead of looking at his watch, counsel looked at the calendar!
KR: What are some principles or strategies for running a successful law firm?
PH: Practising law was always just a vocation. In the present day while it remains a vocation, law practice has also become a commercial business. In the past firms paid little attention to good business practice. That is long past. The bigger firms realised this years ago and many employ business managers who more often than not are also attorneys. The purpose of a business is to make a profit and to make a profit the correct business principles have to be in place. Running an attorneys’ practice does not come cheap and in today’s market firms need to look carefully at their business expenditure and expert advice in this regard is essential. The majority of attorneys are not possessed or adequate business training and need to qualify themselves to undergo such training where the employment of a business manager is not financially viable. More importantly attorney directors/partners whether knowledgeable in the field of business or not should take an interest in the art of running a successful business. Regular meetings must be held with professional staff and meeting with non-professional staff and views requested on possible cost saving measures which should be invited and conversed.
Thus, there are two facets – carrying out the legal work and running the business of a legal practice. If help is needed in this field, a practice must seek that help. It will be money well worth spending.
Kgomotso Ramotsho Cert Journ (Boston) Cert Photography (Vega) is the news reporter at De Rebus.
This article was first published in De Rebus in 2025 (May) DR 35.
