Greyvensteins Inc has hit back at the Legal Practice Council investigation committee’s probe into its advertising practices and relationship with estate agents.
Approached for comment, firm director Liesel Greyvenstein said: “Our firm has been in a long-standing dispute with the LPC over our marketing practices, which we believe has been influenced by local competitors.
“We are now taking legal action to have the decision overturned, as it is both unfair and unlawful. We have not violated any LPC rules.”
BLC Attorneys was one of the Gqeberha firms understood to have filed a complaint against Greyvensteins.
BLC director Sonja Tifloen said though she could not comment due to the matter now being in court, the firm was committed to fairness, due process and legal integrity.
“The firm remains dedicated to professionalism and compliance with all legal, regulatory and ethical standards,” she said.
The investigation found that Greyvensteins had allegedly been “buying work” by paying airfares totalling R35,524 for a Re/Max agency, and the payment of a Christmas function at a cost of more than R25,000.
Re/Max’s Kobie Potgieter said she had been working with Greyvensteins for the past 23 years.
“[Greyvensteins] advertises in our office extensively, as well as through the marketing we put out at show houses and online,” Potgieter said.
“Anywhere Greyvensteins’ logo is displayed, we get remunerated for the advertising.
“We have never paid for business, nor has she [Liesel] ever paid us for business.
“For instance, when a house is sold and our marketing material displays the Greyvensteins’ logo, or when we use branded Greyvensteins’ cups at show houses, we receive compensation purely for advertising.
“That is the only remuneration we receive — there is no payment for referrals or business transactions.
“If the transaction is successful and the Greyvensteins’ logo is used on folders, marketing material and at show houses with branded cups, we receive remuneration for the advertising.
“Regarding the Christmas function mentioned by the LPC, [Greyvensteins’] contribution was solely for advertising purposes.
“The logo and banners were displayed at the front, and she [Liesel] also sponsored the trophies, which were branded with her logo. Again, this was purely an advertising cost.
“Every contribution she has ever made has been for advertising purposes only. We also ask our customers if they have a firm handling their legal matters already.
“However, we love recommending Greyvensteins because they are the best at what they do, and the quality of service we receive from them is phenomenal.
“Our choice to work with [Liesel] is based purely on excellent service and active advertising,” Potgieter said.
LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said: “The review application before court was launched by some directors of Greyvensteins Inc in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act in which they are challenging the report and the findings of the investigation committee that investigated allegations levelled against Greyvensteins.
“The investigation committee concluded that, on the basis of available prima facie evidence, the allegations levelled against Greyvensteins warranted misconduct proceedings to be adjudicated upon by a disciplinary committee.
“The stance of the LPC is set out in our answering affidavit which is part of the court papers.
“No date of disciplinary hearing had been scheduled as the investigation report which is the basis of the disciplinary hearing proceedings is now the subject of litigation.”
The Herald
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.