Some lawyers push back on allegations of cheating inmates

MBABANE – Lawyers are not taking lightly the accusations that they receive payments from inmates but fail to provide legal services.

The allegations against attorneys have sparked a strong response from the legal fraternity. Several lawyers have publicly defended themselves. They say the comparisons with doctors or other professionals are misleading and risk unfairly tarnishing their profession.

The debate was reignited after inmates and their families accused some lawyers of collecting fees upfront and then disappearing, leaving them vulnerable, without representation.

Social media and public forums have been abuzz with stories of financial and emotional hardship suffered by inmates’ relatives, including elderly citizens who are forced to borrow money or sell livestock to cover legal fees. However, some members of the legal profession argue that the criticism is overly broad and fails to consider the challenges lawyers face in the country.

 “People don’t do this to doctors or teachers, and they assume lawyers are just taking advantage. The reality is that litigation is complex, courts are underresourced and lawyers cannot always control delays, procedural hurdles, or how Correctional facilities manage case files, yet the blame is immediately apportioned to us,” said one senior attorney, who asked not to be named.

Some attorneys point out that the cost of one court trip, including transport, filing fees and administrative delays, often exceeds what many clients expect. They argue that upfront payments are sometimes necessary to cover operational costs, especially in cases requiring extensive travel or repeated court appearances.

“We don’t finance our clients’ litigation. It is unfair to demand services for free while expecting us to navigate inefficient systems at our own expense,” the senior lawyer lashed out. The Law Society of Eswatini (LSE) has also emphasised that not every complaint received from Correctional facilities constitutes a formal grievance. Lists of alleged misconduct often lack sufficient detail, requiring follow-up interviews with inmates before disciplinary action can be taken. According to the Law Society, formal complaints must be submitted in writing with clear specifics about the grievance to be investigated appropriately.

Despite the defence, human rights advocates and families of inmates maintain that more needs to be done to ensure accountability and transparency. “Even if there are procedural difficulties, families should not suffer financial or emotional exploitation,” said a representative from a local advocacy group.

While the Law Society continues its nationwide engagement with Correctional facilities to educate inmates about filing formal complaints, some lawyers have urged the public to consider the broader context before condemning the entire profession.

As the discussion continues, both sides agree that trust and accountability are essential for the justice system to function effectively. For now, the conversation points to the requirement of a balance: Protecting inmates from exploitation while recognising the operational realities faced by legal practitioners.

On Friday, this publication reported on a growing number of inmates who have accused some lawyers of taking payments for legal services and disappearing without representing them.

*Full article available in our publication