ASearch for the Truth Does our System

Provide for It? AB Gordon

Johannesburg Bar

After practising at the Johannesburg Bar from States Supreme Court Bar in September 1989. He 1972-1981 the author became an associate at served as a judge pro tern on the Municipal Court O'Melveny & Myers, a top law firm in the United of California during 1988 and 1989. In 1990 he States of America. He was admitted to the State returned to practise at the Johannesburg Bar. Bar of California in June 1983 and to the United

Introduction An American law professor described a law suit as "[a]n intensive search for the truth, nota game to be deter­mined in outcome by considerations of tactics and surprise." 1 The ques­tion is, does this statement accurately describe a law suit in South Africa, given the present rules of procedure?

A civil law suit has few parts. In the United States, a complaint is filed. The defendant answers. There is dis­covery and there are motions. Always some negotiations. Sometimes a trial and occasionally an appeal. But dis­covery dominates.

In South Africa, the position is similar except that there is limited

discovery. The ultimate result is that counsel often becomes aware of cer­tain facts after the trial has already begun. Under these adverse con­ditions, he is expected to stand up, take a deep breath and launch into a penetrating cross-examination. Much of the examination, however, is directed at discovering facts that should be known before the trial begins. This does not make for good trial preparation or presentation.

What follows is a brief discussion in broad terms of the discovery pro­cedures that have been adopted throughout the United States. The detailed mechanisms that enable the system to function efficiently are beyond the scope of this article.

A useful analogy of discovery in the United States is the painstaking reconstruction of an aeroplane acci­dent to determine what caused it to crash. All the pieces are located and then systematically put together. In this way, the cause of the crash can be established.

This article addresses practice in the United States where there is only one bar and where the distinction between advocates and attorneys does not exist. Any lawyer engaged in the litigation process is referred to as "counsel" and it is here used generically to include attorneys and advocates without attempting to make any distinction between their different roles.

CONSULTUS OKTOBER 1991 94

Purpose of discovery The discovery procedures adopted in the United States are a striking and imaginative departure from tra­dition. While each of the fifty states has its own rules of discovery, the model is the federal discovery rules of civil procedure which were adopted as far back as 1938.

The principle of full and open dis­covery has inspired much judicial interpretation by the trial and appel­late courts throughout the United States. This has resulted in the development of a sophisticated and streamlined system of ascertaining the evidence before trial. In Hickman v Taylor2 , the United States Supreme Court held that "mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation' , .

Thirty years ago, the California Supreme Court, in Greyhound Corp v Superior Court, (supra), identified nine results that discovery was intended to accomplish:

(1) [T] 0 give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in chechng and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudu­lent and sham claims and defences; (3) to make available, in a simple con­venient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to edu­cate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defences, thereby encouraging settle­ments; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to pre­vent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial.

The Court reasoned: Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the "game" element out of trial prep­aration while yet retaining the adver­sary nature of the trial itself. One of the principal purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation - namely, surprise at the trial. The

phrase that discovery tends to make a trial less a game of blindman' s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. Modern legal authors, also, have accepted this view of the purpose of discovery pro­cedures." (Emphasis added). p 376.

The spirit of discovery enables a party to conduct an investigation to establish the true facts. This approach has significantly reduced the possibility of surprise, and the need to conduct a trial in the dark or blindly.

Educating counsel in advance of trial of the real value of their client's claims and defences facilitates the dis­position of the litigation. This encourages settlements and assures that judgments rest upon the real merits. With full discovery, the skill of counsel or the ability of one of the parties to conceal or not reveal vital evidence in its possession minimizes the risk of an incorrect judgment.

The limits and scope of discovery The parameters of discovery are determined by the rule that infor­mation is discoverable if it is "reason­ably calculated to lead to the dis­

covery 0f admissible evidence." The spirit of discovery envisages complete cooperation between counsel and this permits discovery to be conducted as an extra-judicial procedure. While the overwhelming majority of discov­ery disputes are settled between coun­sel, the courts are there to resolve disputes that end in a deadlock.

Under the California Discovery Act, the rules mandate that before a party launches a motion to compel discovery, counsel are required to attend a "meet and confer" in a good faith attempt to resolve the impasse over, say, an objection that the requested information is protected by the attorney-client privilege, or that it constitutes trade secrets which may not be disclosed to the competitor, or that the discovery request is over­broad, unreasonably burdensome or oppressive, or ambiguous.

The applicant in a discovery motion either moves to compel dis­covery or for a protective order against burdensome and oppressive discovery. An appropriate order as to costs deters frivolous motions to com­pel and unreasonable refusals to com­ply with discovery requests.

Reference is now made to selected rules of discovery as contained in the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), to illustrate the mechanics of discovery. The frame­work of the discovery process and the limits within which it is expected to operate are set out in FRCP, Rule 26(b)( 1) which provides:

Parties may obtain discovery regard­ing any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in­volved in the pending action, whether

JUTA PRIZE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO

1. The prize-winner will receive a cash sum of R 500.

2. A panel of advocates nominated by th e editorial committee will consider con tributions for th e p r ize and award the p r ize.

3. The decision of the panel will be fin al.

Consultus Juta and Company Limited offers an annual prize for first time contributions to Consultus

4. Q u eries and correspondence should be directed to:

The Editor Consultus 1605 Momentum Centre East Tower 343 P retorius Street Pretoria 0002 Tel : (0 12) 322-1511 (Ext 1605).

Erratum: In the April 1991 issue it was inadvertently stated that the prize was R300 instead of R500.

CONSULTUS OCTOBER 1991 95

it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, includ­ing the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any dis­coverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subdiv. (a) shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more con­venient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking dis­covery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the dis­covery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in con­troversy, limitations on the parties resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation (Emphasis added).

Methods of discovery Discovery involves interrogatories, production of documents, requests for admission, and depositions, both oral and in writing.

FRCP, Rule 26(a) provides the fol­lowing methods of discovery.

Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or writ­ten questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or per­mission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental ex­aminations, and requests for admission. (Emphasis added)

The Rules simply develop discov­ery, which has its antecedents in English chancery practice, into an effi­cient technique for fact ascertainment, to take its place in the common law's arsenal along with the advocate's other efficient weapons such as tes­timony in open court, cross­examination, impeachment, forensic skill, and mastery of legal principles. 3

Each method serves a different pur­pose and the type of discovery will vary from case to case. Complex legal and factual issues require a more intensive type of discovery than the ordinary "fender bender," "crash and bash" or "slip and fall" type of case where only a minimal amount of discovery may be necessary.

Pehaps the best way to demon­strate the effectiveness of the major discovery methods is to use the fact pattern in an actual products liabil­ity case in which a South African manufacturer was recently sued in the Federal District Court in Penn­sylvania, (the "Pennsylvania case"). The plaintiff was operating a steel bending machine known as a "KRB Bender" when his left hand got caught in the bending pins. His hand was badly injured and he sued for damages. He attributed liability to the following defendants: his employer, on whose machine he was working, the Pennsylvania company that manufactured and distributed the machine, and, the South African manufacturer that supplied parts to the Pennsylvania manufacturer.

The plaintiff relies in the main on two theories of product liability: (1) a design defect in the manufacture of the machine; and (2) a negligent failure to provide a sufficient protec­tive guard. Plaintiffs counsel will use discovery to ferret out critical evidence that would otherwise be difficult to obtain because it is under the control of the defendants. The discovery undertaken by the plain­tiff s lawyers will force defendants to make that evidence available to the plaintiff.

The various discovery techniques are now discussed with reference to the facts in the Pennsylvania case.

A. Interrogatories Interrogatories enable a party to obtain facts from the other party. Propounding interrogatories is nor­mally the first step in discovery. It requires the responding party to pro­vide the relevant facts of the case, and to identify the persons who have knowledge of those facts.

Interrogatories serve at least three purposes: (1) they educate parties as to the facts which their opponent relies upon; (2) a party can procure evidence which is controlled by its adversary; and (3) the element of sur­prise at trial is minimized. In the Pennsylvania case, the plaintiff's counsel propounded a short set of interrogatories aimed at extracting evidence under the defendants' con­trol to prove that the safety device fit­ted to the machine, and the safety tests and other investigations with regard to its safe use, were inade­quate. Plaintiffs counsel used the fol­lowing interrogatories to unearth the

evidence to prove these important facts:

(i) Did the machine which plaintiff was operating at the time of the accident have a safety device designed and intended to pre­vent injury to the machine user?

(ii) Prior to the manufacture, sale, or supply of the machine, were any safety tests, studies, or investigations performed with regard to the intended or fore­seeable use of the said machine? If so, please state in detail the name, address, and job capac­ity of those who performed the tests, studies, or investigations, the result of each test, study, or investigation, and the date thereof.

(iii) Identify each person with knowledge of the facts set forth above and state their present business and residential addresses and telephone numbers.

(iv) State the name and present address of each person whom this defendant intends to call at trial as an expert witness and describe in detail the subject­matter on which each expert is expected to testify.

A party has thirty days to respond to interrogatories. If there are valid grounds for objections they must be noted timeously and clearly stated. The interrogatory responses are given under penalty ofperjury which, to some extent, guarantees the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information furnished.

B. Request for production of documents

A Request for production of docu­ments bears some resemblance to the term "discovery" as understood in South Africa. In the United States, rather than relying on the respond­ing party to produce the documents that it considers relevant, the request­ing party identifies the categories of documents that the other side must produce.

In some cases an exhaustive inves­tigation of documents is undertaken to establish a document trail that will demonstrate a pattern of activity that can substantiate or destroy either party's case . Organizations with different departments and different levels of employees customarily generate internal documents which form part of their records such as

CONSULTUS OKTOBER 1991 96

inter-office memos. These may appear innocuous at the time they are written but often end up as "smok­ing guns" several years later after the company's records have been produced and analyzed during the litigation process. This is what occurred in the Asbestos Insurance litigation in the United States several years ago.

The pivotal issue in the asbestos insurance litigation was the meaning of the term "personal injury" appearing in the comprehensive general liability policies issued over several decades to the asbestos indus­try. The workers who had been exposed to asbestos twenty years ago began manifesting symptoms of asbestosis and mesothelioma. They sued their former employers for damages, claiming that they failed to protect them against the dangers of asbestos.

The employers passed the claims on to their insurance carriers who denied coverage on the basis that the term "personal injury" occurred outside the limits of their policies. The term' 'personal injury" in the delayed trauma type of case such as asbestosis· is ambiguous because the injury could have occurred during the period from the first exposure to asbestos to the time when the symp­toms manifested themselves some twenty years later. During this period, several different carriers were on risk for each insured and it became critical to establish during whose policy period each "personal injury" occurred. This determination depended on the meaning of "per­sonal injury" as understood by the underwriters when these words were originally drafted into the insurance policies in the 1930's.

The document production in that case involved producing documents from as far back as the 1930's. Hundreds of insurance companies throughout the United States as well as the insurance market in London were required to produce records from their underwriting departments involving, among other things, their underwriting manuals, inter-office memos, notes on meetings, lectures, papers, research notes, articles, claim files and correspondence, all with a view to prove the meaning of ' 'per­sonal injury".

It became necessary to take the depositions of the" custodian of the records" of the insurers (the person in control of the company's docu­ments) to establish (1) their record

CONSULTUS OCTOBER 1991

keeping procedures and (2) the locations where the documents were stored. Thousands of boxes of docu­ments in warehouses throughout the United States, Canada and London, were systematically reviewed and analyzed. From these documents, many important exhibits were dis­covered and used at trial. It is unlikely that without this method of discovery these documents would have surfaced.

Reverting to the Pennsylvania case, the defendants were served with a "request for production of docu­ments" requiring them to identify and produce the following categories of documents:

(i) Any and all diagrams, blueprints, photographs, draw­ings, or similar items reflecting the design scheme of the KRB Bender the plaintiff was operat­ing at the time of his accident;

(ii) Any and all manuals, hand­books, instruction books or safety guides, rule books, repair or maintenance guidelines, brochures, including advertis­ing materials, or other similar written materials concerning the KRB Bender the plaintiff was operating at the time of the accident;

(iii) Any and all written results of tests, studies and calculations, or inspections conducted in con­nection with the KRB Bender preceding its manufacture and subsequent thereto to the present time, including, but not limited to, those procedures conducted in connection with this lawsuit;

(iv) Any and all written warnings including warning labels, warn­ing stickers, or similar warning devices affixed to or distributed in any manner concerning the KRB Bender.

These are the typical documents which a machine manufacturing company would be expected to have among its records. A defendant who is unable to produce them would struggle to show that it was not negli­gent in the design and testing of the machine. When these documents are produced, counsel can analyse them to establish whether there was a design defect or inadequate testing.

C. Requests for admissions There is another technique of issue and evidence identification . This involves serving a set of "Requests for admissions". Used properly, the

propounding party can force the responding party to admit or deny specific issues.

Under FRCP, Rule 36(a): A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admis­sion, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any mat­ters within the scope of Rule 26(b) [limits and scope of discovery] in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuine­ness of any documents described in the request . . .

Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney, ... Ifobjection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the mat­ter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truth­fully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance ofthe requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify his answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless he states that he has not made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or read­ily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; he may, subject to the provisions of Rule 37 ( c) [expenses of failure to admit], deny the matter or set forth reasons why he cannot admit or deny it.

It is not unusual for a party to serve a separate set of interrogatories that corresponds with each admission request. The purpose is to ascertain the facts, if they exist, that support the denial. The following interroga­tory, for example, is used to deter­mine the genuineness of each denial:

Ifyou do not unequivocally admit the facts stated in Request for Admission No . 1: (a) State each and every fact upon

which your denial is based; (b) Identify the persons, and provide

their residential and working addresses, who have knowledge of

97

the facts supporting the denial; and

(c) Identify each and every document that refers to or supports the facts upon which your denial is based.

The above methods of discovery, namely, interrogatories, request for document production, and admission requests, serve to crystallize the real issues in dispute.

D. Depositions The obvious advantage of the oral deposition is that the deponent, whether witness or party, can be dis­credited ifhe attempts to deviate from his story at the trial. Even though the identity of potential witnesses may be ascertained through interrogatories, the oral deposition goes further because counsel may enquire as to the whereabouts of the person at the time of the occurrence, and may obtain details of the witnesses' knowledge. Unlike interrogatories, oral depos­itions have the advantage of adapta­bility and spontaneity, permitting the lawyer to probe far more deeply. . . Information revealed on oral deposi­tions may determine whether the case should be settled or tried. 4

The procedure for taking depositions works efficiently. Counsel taking a deposition serves a deposition notice on the party's lawyer and the witness to be deposed. It notifies him of the date, time and place of the deposi­tion. The witness may also be served with a subpoena duces tecum, requir­ing him to produce certain specified documents at the deposition so that he can be examined on them.

The deposition is usually taken at the offices of the attorney of record taking the deposition. A court reporter is present. She administers the oath and keeps a record of the proceedings. The witness is exa­mined and answers questions subject to his counsel's objections and instructions not to answer. Ifnecess­ary, he has an opportunity to confer with his counsel before answering.

On completion of the deposition the transcript is prepared and sent to the witness for his review and signa­ture under penalty of perjury. He has the right to make changes but if he does so it will provide fertile ground for his cross-examination at the trial.

The line of examination at a depo­sition depends on the type of witness and the specific issues which counsel is interested in exploring. Witnesses are either "percipient" or "expert".

Tbe examination of a percipient witness at a deposition probes his per­ception of the facts; what he saw or

heard. The deposition provides an opportunity to test his perception so that any untruthfulness or embellish­ment in his testimony will be exposed through cross-examination at trial. Where the trial witness deviates from his deposition testimony, he can be impeached because ofhis prior incon­sistent statement. One of the advan­tages of examining a witness at a deposition is that his version can be investigated before he is cross­examined at trial. In this way, cross­examination can be used with devastating effect in exposing false or exaggerated testimony.

The deposition of the expert on the other hand focuses on opinions. It enables a foundation to be laid for his cross-examination at trial by explor­ing the expert's qualifications, opinions and reasons.

In the Pennsylvania case, an inter­rogatory was propounded requesting the defendants to identify the expert witnesses they intend calling at trial and to describe in detail the subject­matter of their testimony. Armed with this information, the plaintiff can proceed with the expert depo­sitions. The issues to be investigated should consist of the following:

o The educational background of the expert;

o The special training he received in the field of his expertise;

o His teaching experience in the field; o His general employer back­

ground - employer, title, duties, term of each position held;

o All papers, books and articles published, or reported lectures on the subject;

o His membership in professional societies and organizations;

o All trade or professional journals subscribed to or read;

o Those fields in which the expert considers himself qualified as an expert;

o Whether he has ever consulted as an expert before - when, where and for whom;

o Whether he has ever testified as an expert before - when, where and for whom;

o What proportion of cases he repre­sented plaintiffs or defendants;

o Whether he considers any other persons qualified as an expert in the field;

o His experience with this particu­lar machine - design, manufac­ture, inspection, testing, use as a consumer;

o What the financial or other arrangements are for appearing as an expert in this case, includ­ing the expert witness fee and expenses.

Experts on opposing sides invariably express opinions that support the side calling them. Their evidence is of a technical nature and it is often difficult for the trier of fact to deter­mine whose opinion should prevail, particularly when the experts have equal qualifications, experience and expertise.

The trier of fact will be in a better position to make a correct finding where the experts are subjected to a more penetrating cross-examination. This is accomplished by examining the expert as to his opinions and rea­sons at a deposition, scrutinizing them with one's own expert after­wards, and then preparing a cross­examination. This process educates counsel and equips him to cross­examine more effectively than if his preparation was based mainly on the expert report filed.

Depositions generally may be introduced as evidence under the cir­cumstances described in FRCP Rule 32(a) which provides:

At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceed­ing, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against arry party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with arry of the following provisions: (1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradict­ing or impeaching the testimony ofdeponent as a witness, or for any purpose permit­ted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. (2) ... (3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (A) that the witness is dead; or (B) that the witness is at a greater dis­tance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; or (C) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because ofage, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (D) that the party offering the depo­sition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (E) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testi­mony of witnesses orally in open court to allow the deposition to be used.

CONSULTUS OKTOBER 1991 98

(4) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require him to introduce any other part which ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts. (Emphasis added).

The value of this procedure is appar­ent in that it enables a party to place evidence before the court which it may otherwise not be entitled to do.

The advantages of discovery By eliminating or substantially reducing the chance element through discovery, litigation becomes a more exact science. It permits a party to obtain evidence under his opponent's control which can then be used to prove that party's case. It will always expose a frivolous claim or sham defence. It also allows for better cross­examination.

A well thought out discovery plan enables a party to flush out evidence that goes to the very core of the case. In this way, facts which would nor­mally remain buried and never sur­face can be extracted and presented as evidence.

When all the evidence is known, the lawyers can use their forensic skills to analyze the facts and present them to the court in a systematic, logical and orderly fashion.

Rules of procedure based upon an open discovery system create another advantage. There is a noticeable decrease in the number of cases that would normally go to trial. Once the facts are out, good and bad, the law­yers are in a better position to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and reach a settle­ment. In this way, the litigants are spared the enormous costs involved in trying the lawsuit.

In California, the rules of civil procedure exploit discovery to the fullest by requiring counsel to attend a mandatory settlement conference before a settlement judge. This con­ference, or "MSC," as it is collo­quially referred to, is scheduled after the parties have had an opportunity of undertaking effective discovery. Counsel are required to prepare and file a Mandatory Settlement Confer­ence Statement several days before the conference. This enables each party's counsel to articulate the theory of its case, amply supported by the evidence and applicable legal principles, and thereby demonstrate

to the judge why his client should pre­vail. After reviewing each party's Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement, the judge is in a position to bring the parties closer towards a settlement.

Conclusion This article hopefully demonstrates that the uniform rules of court, in their present form, can be improved upon. Perhaps the time has come for the existing procedures to be revamped by introducing techniques that will allow a more scientific ap­proach to the resolution of a lawsuit by giving greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury.

Professor David W Louisell, as cited in Greyhound Corporation v Superior Court, 56 C.2d 355 (1961).

2 (1946) 67 S.C . 385. 3 Greyhound Corp., supra at 377 . 4 Amjur Trials [" An encyclopedic guide

to the modern practices, techniques, and tactics used in preparing and try­ing cases, with model programs for the handling of all types of litigation."]' Vol. 4 at 122.

Pro Bono-dienste Eberhard Bertelsmann SC,

Pretoriase 8alie

Die verskaffing van pro bono­dienste aan die publiek het in die eerste helfte van 1991 for­meel beslag gekry. Die Pre­toriase Balie en die Trans­

vaalse Prokureursorde het die loods­projek wat in die Oktober 1990-uitgawe van Consultus in vooruitsig gestel is, inmiddels van stapel gestuur.

Pro bono-dienste sal deur die Pretoriase Balie en die Transvaalse Prokureursorde aangebied word. Die Transvaalse Prokureursorde verskaf die administratiewe dienste. Ver­dienstelike persone wat andersins nie geholpe sou kon raak nie, word deur die kantoor van die genoemde Orde

CONSULTUS OCTOBER 1991

na n prokureursfirma in Pretoria verwys wat die aangeleentheid onder­soek en besluit of the dienste van 'n advokaat benodig word, al dan nie. Indien die prokureur die betrokke klient selfkan help, sal hy dit uit die aard van die saak doen.

Word die dienste van 'n advokaat pro bono benodig, skakel die betrokke prokureur met die Pretoriase Balie, wat. die aangeleentheid na 'n advokaat verwys wat beskikbaar is.

Ter voorbereiding van hierdie diens is alle lede van die Pretoriase Balie versoek om hul dienste ten minste twee dae per jaar pro bono beskikbaar te stel en om aan te dui wanneer en vir welke tipe werk hulle

beskikbaar sou wees. Die kollegas het feitlik deur die bank positief gereageer en sommige van hulle het inderdaad reeds werk pro bono verrig.

Alhoewel die projek nog in sy loodsfase is, is die eerste aanduidings dat dit baie suksesvol sal wees. Indien daar aan hierdie verwagting voldoen word, sal daar vroeg volgende jaar gepoog word om die diens landwyd uit te brei.

N avrae oor pro bono-dienste kan aan mnr Koen Prinsloo, Transvaalse Prokureursorde, Tel: (012) 3227294 gerig word of aan mev Marie Eloff, Tel: (012) 3221511, Kamer 1113, Advokatekamers, Momentumsen­trum, Pretoria.

99