A few months before he died from Covid-19-related complications, Durban attorney Michael Friedman discovered that a trusted employee, a woman he considered a friend, had been stealing from him and his clients.
After a disciplinary hearing, client support and liaison manager Alpheana Ndlovu was fired and told she could no longer have any contact with the firm’s clients.
But now Friedman’s daughter Leanne Freeman, the executor of his estate, and another local attorney, Antonio de Sousa, have gone to court to secure an interim interdict from Durban high court judge Esther Steyn against Ndlovu and her new legal firm.
They are now forbidden from “touting”.
As the go-between between the firm and the clients, including caregivers, facilitators and drivers, her contract of employment stated that should she leave or be dismissed, she was barred from using any company information or disclosing it to a third party.
All of Friedman’s now-former clients are mothers of children born with cerebral palsy, allegedly as a result of negligence at state hospitals.
In most of their matters – which potentially involve payouts of many millions of rand – the department has already conceded liability, and Friedman’s estate is owed money for payments he made upfront for accommodation, transport, hospital bills, legal fees and expert reports.
Ndlovu now claims she was unfairly dismissed and says she built Friedman’s business. She accuses him of making money from “black people” and treating them like “objects”.
But attorneys who worked with him and for him described him as a great philanthropist who went the extra mile for his clients, organising social gatherings and training workshops for them so they had support and knew how to care for their special needs children.
“It is rejected with complete revulsion the allegation that he treated his clients like objects,” a former colleague said in court papers.
They said they believed clients were now being duped into signing new agreements with MLS Attorneys Inc, and the director, attorney Lwazi Mnguni, on the back of promises that because they had contacts in the department of health, their matters could be settled within two weeks.
Friedman died in January 2021. He ran a specialised medical negligence practice. Most of his clients signed contingency agreements through which he covered, at risk, all their expenses and legal costs upfront.
If their claims were successful, he could claim back up to 25% of their payouts. At the time of his death he had about 30 active litigation matters.
In his affidavit, which came before judge Esther Steyn, De Sousa said after Friedman’s death, his trust and business accounts had been frozen by the Legal Practice Council, which halted payments for rentals and other expenses for some of the clients.
The situation needed urgent resolution, and it was agreed with Freeman and the LPC that De Sousa would take over some of the clients, if they were agreeable, to bring their matters to finality.
After signing up with him, two clients made contact with the offices to say they had been contacted by Mnguni. He claimed he had been instructed by the KZN department of health that all files had to be handed to his office and that he could settle their claims within two weeks.
Others reported receiving calls from Ndlovu, claiming many clients had signed with MLS attorneys and repeating that claims would be settled in two weeks.
De Sousa said these representations were clearly false and, while clients had the right to choose who represented them, they were being misled and their disabled children could be the ultimate victims.
They also could not just take their claim elsewhere because disbursements already made by the firm had to be paid to the estate.
According to documents before the court, Ndlovu worked for Friedman from 1991. She was dismissed at the end of October 2020 after being found guilty of dishonesty, fraud, gross negligence and gross misconduct.
As the go-between between the firm and the clients, including caregivers, facilitators and drivers, her contract of employment stated that should she leave or be dismissed, she was barred from using any company information or disclosing it to a third party.
Among the allegations she was found guilty of, was that she used the company account to purchase furniture for clients – including expensive Smeg appliances – which were never delivered to them.
Ndlovu, in her opposing affidavit in the interdict application, admitted she was now employed as a senior paralegal by MLS Attorneys.
She claimed she was unfairly dismissed by Friedman. She admitted placing the orders for the furniture and appliances, but said she did not check if they had been delivered to clients.
She said to this day clients still contacted her when they had problems and she believed that was an “Ubuntu relationship”.
“They always found a way to find me.”
She said after Friedman died, she got many calls from mothers saying they had been abandoned by him. She spoke to them, but she did not “tout” for business.
She said: “Black people were used for money by Mr Friedman, and they were trapped in his system and could not escape.” She claimed she was the “face of the firm”.
Mnguni, in his affidavit, said he had been approached by disgruntled Friedman clients who claimed they had been “cut off” after his death.
He claimed to be acting for them pro bono.
“These clients are not educated or sophisticated,” he said, alleging Friedman ran a greedy practice off the backs of poor black women, and De Sousa just wanted to fill his shoes and be his heir apparent.
In a further affidavit, De Sousa said Ndlovu had played very little part in building Friedman’s law practice and its success was down to his “phenomenal” litigation skills.
He said she had not sought recourse against her dismissal with the CCMA and it was not open to her now to allege it had been unfair.
With regards to a complaint that Friedman had refused to hand over a large sum of money in the form of an interim payment from the department to the unemployed father of a child, De Sousa said the money was only for the benefit of the child.
He said Friedman, in at least two cases, had paid for the children to receive private health care and therapy even before the issue of liability in the matters had been resolved. He paid for medical expenses from his own pocket until the matters were successfully concluded.
I agree that the lives of some of his clients have been drastically affected since his death.
— De Sousa
“I agree that the lives of some of his clients have been drastically affected since his death. This is because his accounts were frozen, and it shows the extent to which he ensured that they lived a comfortable life and that all the needs of the child were taken care of.”
He said most payments had now been reinstated by his firm. The application for the interdict to be made final or dismissed has yet to be set down in court.
One mother laid a complaint with the Legal Practice Council against Friedman, claiming she was not given a choice regarding which trust company was handling her child’s R12.5m payout, it was revealed in the court papers.
She said she only received money “after a big fight”. While her matter had settled in 2017, she still lived with her son in a rented house because the trust “failed to get them a house”.
She also complained she had not been given a proper breakdown of fees taken by the firm and money deposited into the trust.
Friedman, in his response, put up documents showing disbursements and said his senior associate had guided the mother through all the documents.
He put up notes reflecting dealings the trust had with the mother, which included requests by her that it pay for flights to Malawi, R50,000 for multiple traditional ceremonies not related to the child and money for the child’s father.
The trust had found a house for her in August 2020 for R950,000, but the mom had “changed her mind” about it.
It was the trust’s view that she was struggling financially because she was supporting two households and it had been explained to her that the trust could not pay for other family members.
Friedman said: “A small minority of my clients believe they are entitled to the proceeds of the claim and that it should not go into the trust.
“They do not understand that monies paid into the trust are for the benefit of the minor child, and not to be used by themselves for their own benefit. Rising expectations cause problems in that they want to draw in excess of what would be reasonable ... it is the job of the trustees to ensure that the child outlasts the money and not the other way round.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.