Choosing a Correspondent Attorney in Zimbabwe

The choice of a correspondent attorney is an important one. ‘There is no rule of practice by which a defence can be founded on laxity or inefficiency in the functioning of the arrangement between a correspondent and his instructing legal practitioner.' Why have a correspondent attorney?

Where a litigant resides away from the place where legal proceedings are instituted (the seat), the litigant is entitled to employ a legal practitioner in the place where he resides, as well as the place the proceedings (seat) are instituted. Therefore, the place where the real business of a company is being carried out and/or where the liquidation is consequently being conducted, is treated as the residence of a company. The convenience of this, is that it is desirable for litigants to have an attorney at the place where they reside with whom they can consult Cheda J, in Iita v Iita, remarked that

An instructing legal practitioner must appoint a correspondent whose address of service is within a flexible radius of the Registrar’s Office (High Court). The court should, where circumstances demand, leniently treat a litigant who is not well versed with legal principles in a matrimonial matter even where his/her legal practitioner is at fault, as matrimonial matters are highly emotional and result in a person’s change of status. A legal practitioner who fails a client should personally pay for the wasted costs.

A correspondent attorney could be a partner in the same law firm, or a firm with common partners operating from a different location, one which is close to the seat of the court.

In City of Gweru v Richard Masinire,it was held that:

Those legal practitioners are allowed to instruct others operating close to the seat of the court usually referred to as correspondents. To the extent that the Fees and Allowances Rules recognise the right of a country legal practitioner to instruct another legal practitioner operating next to the seat of the court, it matters not that the latter is from the same law firm as long as the firm operates 2 different offices.

More often than not, correspondent attorneys attend hearings instead of the attorney of record.This practice is cost effective, as the attorney of record instructs an attorney on his behalf, which attorney is allowed a charge for attending the hearing.

Generally, the correspondent attorney is the attorney of record’s ‘post box’ for purposes of filing of necessary documents, writing and perusing necessary letters and forwarding them to the principal as well as uplifting court orders etc.

It goes without saying, it is sometimes difficult working through correspondents.

However, as the correspondent relationship between firms is a contractual one, the instructing firm or instructing legal practitioner is responsible for the acts or omissions of the correspondent.