van Reyneveld Bhika Scott inc. - Attempting to Extort Money by Attorney S. Bhika

Posted on Saturday, March 26th, 2011 at 2:19am CDT by 801c5633

Product: legal profession

Company: van Reyneveld Bhika Scott inc.

Location: 28 Convent Road Greenhills, Randfontein, West Rand, Gauteng, South Africa
Randfontein, Ga, 1760, ZA

Category: Other

Approximately two and half years ago, Attorneys van Reyneveld Bhika Scott inc. from Randfontein, Gauteng, offered to sue a debtor on my behalf and it was agreed that the firm of attorneys would recover their costs from the case. In October 2010 Attorney S. Bhika's secretary called and threatened to take me to court if I did not pay the money owing to them. I was stunned! We had an agreement as stated before, so what are they talking about? I had received no invoice. I had no idea what the threat was all about and an attempt to contact Attorney S. Bhika to get clarity failed: her secretary, Jeanette Kraft, kept threatening me that I have to pay. Pay what? For what? And, said the secretary, if I want to talk to Attorney Bhika to get clarity I have to pay a consultation fee for the call. If this seems utterly ludicrous and delusional, you will be shocked to know that it gets even worse. I lodged two complaints with the Law Society and sent registered letters to Attorney S. Bhika to clarify my position. A mind boggling letter of demand from Attorney S. Bhika, littered with lies and manipulative belligerence, was delivered to me by the sheriff of the court. I subsequently forwarded their demands to the Law Society in Pretoria, South Africa. My advice to the public: DON'T BE BULLIED BY BELLIGERENT ATTORNEYS WHO ACT WITH IMPUNITY!


3 Comments

Post a Comment

ea194b79, 2011-03-28, 08:41AM CDT

In response to the complaint:

On 24 April 2008, our company received instruction from the complainant to pursue a claim on his behalf. The matter in question was dealt with by our litigation department. We are unaware of the agreement referred to by the complainant and will appreciate a copy of the said agreement. Accounts have in fact been sent regularly since 2008 to a postal address given to us by the complainant. What is surprising, is that the complainant fails to acknowledge that he had been previously accommodated in respect of fees written off by our company, proof of which is readily available on our file.

A telephone call was in fact made by our collections department on 22 February 2011 to request payment of the outstanding amount. Prior to this, telephone calls were made by the litigation attorney and assistant requesting payment. The complainant failed to attend our offices for an appointment scheduled by the said attorney on 25 October 2010. No attempt was made by the complainant to discuss the issue with the litigation attorney who dealt with the matter during October 2010. We withdrew as attorneys of record and a standard letter of demand was served by the Sheriff on the complainant on 23 March 2011 in respect of unpaid fees for services rendered by our company.

We reserve our rights in respect of the defamatory remarks made by the complainant against the company and Ms S Bhika. We further confirm that we will respond to any Law Society complaint if required to do so.

ea194b79, 2011-03-28, 08:48AM CDT

In response to the complaint:

On 24 April 2008, our company received instruction from the complainant to pursue a claim on his behalf. The matter in question was dealt with by our litigation department. We are unaware of the agreement referred to by the complainant and will appreciate a copy of the said agreement. Accounts have in fact been sent regularly since 2008 to a postal address given to us by the complainant. What is surprising, is that the complainant fails to acknowledge that he had been previously accommodated in respect of fees written off by our company, proof of which is readily available on our file.

A telephone call was in fact made by our collections department on 22 February 2011 to request payment of the outstanding amount. Prior to this, telephone calls were made by the litigation attorney and assistant requesting payment. The complainant failed to attend our offices for an appointment scheduled by the said attorney on 25 October 2010. No attempt was made by the complainant to discuss the issue with the litigation attorney who dealt with the matter during October 2010. We withdrew as attorneys of record and a standard letter of demand was served by the Sheriff on the complainant on 23 March 2011 in respect of unpaid fees for services rendered by our company.

We reserve our rights in respect of the defamatory remarks made by the complainant against the company and Ms S Bhika. We further confirm that we will respond to any Law Society complaint if required to do so.

26327e68, 2011-03-30, 07:12AM CDT

At last! A citizen who fails to buckle down to corrupt lawyers! I salute you.

Interestingly enough, the Attorney fails to acknowledge or deny the complaints: She refused to clarify the situation telephonically and wanted to charge for the telephone call if she did make the call. There is something fundamentally wrong with the attorneys logic and attitude. Surely the attorney could have clarified the matter by a simple phonecall? Already my suspicions are heightened.

If she could deliver a summons using the sheriff, why didn't she deliver the invoice, and any other urgent documentation, in the same manner? Again, there's a trickle of dishonesty creeping in here.

She also didn't deny the repeated threatening attitude of her secretary; clearly from her command. This is an interesting point: when truth is at play, there is never a need to threaten, especially when the complainant is trying to get clarity and all he gets is more threats. This is not uncommon. Psychologically this normally implies that the person threatening without clarity (especially when the complainant is seeking clarity), has lost control; its a subconscious way of dealing with inevitable loss & lies and, then the person finally tries to use their muscle as a resolution to gain what isn't rightfully theirs. The behaviour, as I said, is quite common. Shame on you.

When the complainant said their was an agreement between them, why did the attorney not call a meeting with the parties to clarify? Throughout the response from the attorney, there is no distinct effort to sort the problem out. I get the magnified impression of bullying; the sort of tactics used by loan sharks to extract money from debtors.

The attorney says the complainant made no effort to clear the matter with the litigation department at the time; yet, the major part of the complaint deals with exactly that: trying to sort out the problem. The attorney is skirting around the truth in feeble jargon.

Attorney S. Bhika is clearly being circumlocutious and she present herself as someone who should be handled with prudence and caution; in fact, it would be best to avoid this practice alltogether.

As a final thought: If the attorney is getting up to such nonsense as this in the practice I would investigate her for other anomalies too, which I'm sure are manifesting themselves with that awkward uncertainty when one is never quite sure what is actually going on.

I would be interested to hear from other members of the public who have had dealings with this attorney; an attorney who clearly should be investigated, by her partners and the Law Society.

The public have every right to question every motive and move a legal representative makes, without fear of reprisal.

Post a Comment