Bobroff saga: If innocent, why not face music

GEORGE VAN NIEKERK

On May 25, the SA Jewish Report published a statement by the Bobroff family, “Bobroffs maintain their innocence on charges”, wherein the Bobroffs deny any wrongdoing of whatsoever nature.

The statement is rejected.

The facts are: Eight recent High Court judgments catalogue their unprofessional conduct. There are another 10 pending civil cases against them based on overreaching.

The judgments contain trenchant criticism of the manner in which the Bobroffs have conducted themselves in the litigation against them.

Justice John Murphy held that they were “acting tactically to avoid and frustrate scrutiny” and that they have made the “calculated decision… to delay the disciplinary and investigative process”.

Justice Sharise Weiner concluded that their “attorney and client bill was manipulated in order to obtain a higher fee”.

Justice Elias Matojane found a “deliberate strategy… employed by the Bobroffs to delay for as long as they can the investigation of their financial affairs in the face of serious allegations of impropriety that are being made against them”.

In the De La Guerre matter, the full bench of the South Gauteng High Court found that the Law Society and the Bobroffs were aware of the illegality of common law contingency fee agreements “as long ago as November 1992”.

Instead of answering the allegations against them, the Bobroffs have tried to appeal the judgments against them. These appeals have been found to be “contrived” and “intended to delay an inspection of their books”. They have been found to be in contempt of court.

These are not our assertions; these are High Court judgments.

The courts have ordered them to pay the legal costs of their former clients, and indeed in several instances the courts made punitive cost orders as a mark of the courts’ displeasure. 

For the past five years the Bobroffs have steadfastly and studiously avoided answering the very serious allegations of unprofessional and unlawful conduct against them. 

They claim in their statement to this newspaper that the law “should be allowed to take its course” and that “each and every allegation will be dealt with at the appropriate time and in a proper manner”. Yet Ronald and Darren absconded from this jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. As a consequence, their erstwhile attorneys of record withdrew as their attorneys, and they have been suspended from practice.  

A report by two inspectors of the Law Society concluded, on the basis of findings of very serious misconduct and criminal offences, that “the directors of the firm are guilty of unprofessional conduct”. The report by the Law Society remains unanswered by the Bobroffs.

Ronald and Darren Bobroff suggest that they are untainted attorneys who should be trusted. They have abused that trust, most recently by fleeing the jurisdiction of the very courts of which they are officers, to evade justice.

If the Bobroffs really believe in their innocence and that the law should be allowed to take its course, they should return to South Africa to face the music.