In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

DAVIS, J

Further;

"Die inhoud van hierdie paragrawe word ontken en word respondent se onwaarhede weer hier ontbloot. Ek neem aan dat die respondent hat met hierdie innoverende weergawe vorenda~g gekom nadat sy met haar huidige regsverteenwoordiger konsulter het."

It appears that, at some point, respondent realised that these constituted egregious attacks on the legal representatives who were but discharging their mandate. Accordingly, in a further affidavit, of which I only now have sight (by agreement between the parties it was handed to me), respondent sought to explain away these attacks through the old excuse that "it was a typing error". The bizarreness of this excuse is perhaps best illustrated in the following passage from this affidavit:

"In paragraaf 144 het daar weereens 'n onduidelik ingeglip as gevolg van 'n tikfout aangesien hierdie paragraaf verwys na die woord nadat terwyl die korrekte woord alvorens moes wees, met ander woorde voordat die konsultasie plaasgevind het. Hierdie paragraaf moet as voig lees: '144. Die inhoud van hierdie paragrawe word ontken en word die respondent se onwaarhede weer hier ontbloot. Ek neem aan dat die respordent het met hierdie innoverende weergawe vorendag gekom alvorens sy met haar huidige regsverteenwoordiger gekonsulteer het."

But legal representatives are not the aggrieved parties. It is not their marriage that has fallen apart. It is not their emotional psyche that has been scarred by the break-up of what was once a loving relationship. It is not their children who constitute the battleground for further emotional conflagration. Legal representatives shoufd remain calm, dispassionate, pursue their clients' interests within the context of being officers of the Court. All too often in matrimonial cases, which I have come across, the nature of the litigation leads to speculation as to who real source of the problem; that is - would the matter better be resolved without the lawyers rather than with the lawyers? Are the lawyers maintaining a dispassionate barrier to which I made reference earlier?

"In which the learned judge warned against the practitioner who takes up the utterly wrong attitude that his sole duty is to his client ... as if he were that client's mere hireling."

u!n my opinion these attacks made upon Jordan on the evidence placed before the Court by Mr Eiser in his affidavit are scurrilous. It is wholly unjustified by anything stated or done by Mr Jordaan. If attorneys as officers of the Court behave in such a fashion towards each other such conduct can only reflect upon the dignity of the whole legal profession. Furthermore, such conduct brings not only the profession into contempt but indeed the whole system of justice and the Courts/ at 298E.

In my view, this case is no different. These allegations should not have been made against lawyers trying to represent their client, legal to the best of their ability. The deponent should have respected    their    integrity,    which    they    deserve.        Legal representatives, being attorneys and advocates, have only one component of trading stock. That is their integrity. Without integrity, no attorney, nor advocate can continue to practice successfully Tell a judge that an attorney or an advocate is dishonest and that tabel sticks. A sense of doubt may be created in the judicial mind, however unfair that might subsequently prove to be. This kind of conduct cannot be allowed. I express the hope that in making these comments practitioners, particularly in the area of matrimonial disputes, will bear in mind the necessity to keep a proper balance between being officers of the court doing proper duty to their clients.

In this case legal representatives, who are entitled to hold on to their hard earned integrity were entitled to approach this Court. To the extent that there has been a delay, that may be partly due to my own fault, in that, upon reflection, I should have dealt with the cost issue on the day, but there was a desire to deal with the substantive questions, particularly bearing in mind the pressure of the roll duty of a duty judge.