The closure of deceased East London attorney Graeme Bell’s law practice has raised a question over whether another law firm that was interested in a commercial stake in the practice was conflicted when it accepted the mandate from the Legal Practice Council (LPC) to take legal custody of Bell’s client files.

A Daily Dispatch report notes there was no other director or certified legal practitioner in Bell’s firm – Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Attorneys (CCBR) – when he died in July.

The LPC was appointed as curator bonus over CCBR by the High Court in August, to take administrative control of the firm and especially of the significant sums of money held in trust accounts.

It appointed Angus Pringle of Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Attorneys (DFO) as its agent to take custody of the CCBR client files, to advise clients of their right to appoint an attorney of their own choice to represent them, or to mandate Pringle to continue representing them.

Shortly after Bell’s death, his close friend and business associate, Clive Berlyn, wrote to 15 local law firms, including DFO, asking if they had any interest in acquiring CCBR as a going concern.

‘I was not prepared to look at a slash and burn option. By about the third week in August it was clear (Pringle) wasn’t going to proceed with any offer.’

He suggested that through the LPC appointment Pringle would now achieve what he had been unable to secure during those discussions.

In an August letter to Berlyn, Pringle confirmed ‘our intention is not to obtain the business’ of the firm, nor ‘the name or corporate identity of the business or the property’, says the Daily Dispatch report.

‘We would be interested in acquiring the securities held by (the firm), and that should we be appointed as executor and (sic) any estate arising from those securities, that we could enter into a fee-sharing arrangement with’ Bell’s widow and executrix of his estate Colleen Bell.’

Pringle also wrote that he had already communicated with the LPC regarding the appointment of a curator to control the trust account.

Pringle and DFO senior partner Richard Jardine strenuously denied that a conflict of interest existed, or that the agency mandate potentially gave DFO the same opportunity it had sought in discussions with Berlyn.

Pringle said his discussions with Berlyn were aimed at ‘assisting the family’.

One attorney said it was possible that a client approached by Pringle as LPC agent about appointing another attorney might suggest that DFO consider doing the work.

‘That’s a natural consequence of (DFO) being in possession of (the file) at the time that the person comes to make their choice.’

The LPC said its Eastern Cape director Alfred Hona had no knowledge of the discussions between Berlyn and Pringle, but ‘we do not believe that there is any conflict of interest’.

Full Daily Dispatch report

See full backgrounder in the Daily Dispatch