which is related to any matter upon which the legal practitioner has advised, or acted on behalf of, the existing client, without first obtaining the written consent of that client. If a matter involves a contentious dispute between an existing client and the new client, even written consent may not be sufficient to render the practice legitimate. This is not an issue in this case and need not be decided now. Whether it is a breach of loyalty for a legal practitioner to act against an existing client in relation to a matter unrelated to any matter upon which the legal practitioner has advised, or acted on behalf of the existing client, without first obtaining the consent, will depend on the circumstances of each case. client’s Those circumstances include the nature and extent of the relationship between the legal practitioner and the existing client, as well as the nature of the new instruction, and the question whether, viewed objectively, the existing client has a reasonable expectation of loyalty from the legal practitioner such that the legal practitioner should seek his or her consent before accepting the new instruction. The more casual or attenuated the relationship between the legal practitioner and the existing client, the less likely the existing client will have a reasonable expectation of loyalty. Of course, where a client has specifically requested and obtained a retainer from the legal practitioner, in terms of which the legal practitioner undertakes not to act against the client in respect of any matter at all or without first obtaining written consent, then that undertaking will, in addition to contractual obligations, give rise to a reasonable expectation of loyalty. Secondly, the duty of confidentiality imposes an obligation upon a legal practitioner not to divulge any information received from a client in confidence.
which is related to any matter upon which the legal practitioner has advised, or acted on behalf of, the existing client, without first obtaining the written consent of that client. If a matter involves a contentious dispute between an existing client and the new client, even written consent may not be sufficient to render the practice legitimate. This is not an issue in this case and need not be decided now. Whether it is a breach of loyalty for a legal practitioner to act against an existing client in relation to a matter unrelated to any matter upon which the legal practitioner has advised, or acted on behalf of the existing client, without first obtaining the client’s consent, will depend on the circumstances of each case. Those circumstances include the nature and extent of the relationship between the legal practitioner and the existing client, as well as the nature of the new instruction, and the question whether, viewed objectively, the existing client has a reasonable expectation of loyalty from the legal practitioner such that the legal practitioner should seek his or her consent before accepting the new instruction. The more casual or attenuated the relationship between the legal practitioner and the existing client, the less likely the existing client will have a reasonable expectation of loyalty. Of course, where a client has specifically requested and obtained a retainer from the legal practitioner, in terms of which the legal practitioner undertakes not to act against the client in respect of any matter at all or without first obtaining written consent, then that undertaking will, in addition to contractual obligations, give rise to a reasonable expectation of loyalty. Secondly, the duty of confidentiality imposes an obligation upon a legal practitioner not to divulge any information received from a client in confidence.
Witvlei%20Meat%20v%20Disciplinary%20Committee%20for%20Legal%20Practitioners%20(SA%209-2012)[2013](15%20November%202013).docx