Lopes Attorneys Inc

Lopes Attorneys Inc Lopes Attorneys Inc is a dynamic and internationally recognised boutique law firm dedicated to delivering cutting-edge legal solutions.

We provide exceptional legal counsel with integrity and a deep understanding of our clients’ needs.

The Legal Value of PreventionAnimal welfare law is often most visible after something has gone wrong. An incident occurs...
02/09/2026

The Legal Value of Prevention

Animal welfare law is often most visible after something has gone wrong. An incident occurs, a complaint is made, an inspection follows, and the legal framework is used to determine what should happen next.

But its value does not begin at the point of enforcement.

Much of animal welfare regulation is preventative by design. Standards relating to housing, handling, transport, supervision, veterinary care and record-keeping are intended to reduce the risk of harm before intervention becomes necessary.

That makes prevention a governance question as much as a compliance one.

An organisation can be very good at responding once an incident occurs and still have weak systems for preventing that incident in the first place. The real distinction lies in whether welfare risks are identified early, responsibilities are clear, and concerns can be escalated before they become more serious.

A transport requirement is a simple example. A written rule may say that animals must be moved under appropriate conditions. Whether that rule works in practice depends on the systems around it: who checks the conditions, who is responsible for intervening if something is wrong, and whether there is a reliable record of what happened.

That is where prevention becomes tangible.

Preventative systems need to be capable of working in practice, not only on paper. That means ensuring that welfare concerns can be identified, recorded and acted on before they develop into more serious problems.

Not every risk can be eliminated, and many decisions still depend on veterinary, scientific and practical judgment. But the stronger legal framework is one that does not wait for harm before becoming relevant.

Its value lies in shaping conduct early enough to reduce the likelihood that intervention will be needed at all.

The Difference Between Permission and LegitimacyA licence, permit or approval can answer one important legal question: m...
31/08/2026

The Difference Between Permission and Legitimacy

A licence, permit or approval can answer one important legal question: may this activity proceed?

What it does not always answer is whether the activity will be accepted by the people, communities or stakeholders most affected by it.

This matters particularly in environmental and regulatory work. A project may satisfy the legal requirements for approval and still face opposition because the issue is no longer only about permission. It may also be about trust, participation, environmental risk or whether affected people believe their concerns were genuinely heard.

This is where legality and legitimacy begin to separate.

A project that is legally authorised but broadly contested may still face delays, reputational pressure, further litigation or resistance during implementation. That does not necessarily mean the approval was unlawful. It does show that a legal right to proceed and a practical ability to proceed smoothly are not always the same thing.

For businesses, compliance therefore cannot always be treated as the final stage of engagement. Where communities, environmental interests or other stakeholders are affected, the quality of the process matters long after the permit has been issued.

Meaningful consultation can reveal concerns early and improve decision-making. Transparency can also help distinguish between disagreement with an outcome and distrust of the process itself.

Permission remains essential.

But in heavily regulated environments, the stronger position is one in which the legal authority to act is supported by a process capable of carrying stakeholder confidence with it.

When the Law Put Animals on TrialFor several centuries, European courts sometimes did something that now seems almost im...
28/08/2026

When the Law Put Animals on Trial

For several centuries, European courts sometimes did something that now seems almost impossible to imagine: they put animals on trial.

These were not always symbolic proceedings. Historical records describe formal cases involving pigs, dogs, rats, insects and other animals, particularly in parts of France, Italy, Switzerland and Germany during the late medieval and early modern periods. Some proceedings took place in secular courts, while others were dealt with by ecclesiastical authorities.

One of the more striking examples comes from 1457, when a sow and her six piglets were accused after the death of a child. The sow was convicted and sentenced to death. The piglets, however, were reportedly acquitted because there was insufficient evidence of their involvement.

Other proceedings were stranger still. Rats and insects could become the subject of cases when they destroyed crops, while ecclesiastical proceedings sometimes involved attempts to formally condemn or expel pests from a community. The process could resemble ordinary legal procedure far more closely than we might expect.

It is tempting to dismiss these trials as medieval absurdity. But they also reveal something interesting about the law itself.

When something disrupted the social order, legal systems looked for a way to place that event inside a recognisable structure of accusation, responsibility and judgment, even when the “accused” was incapable of understanding any of it.

The defendants may have changed.

The instinct to make disorder answerable to law has not

The Law Protects the Work. Not the Thought Behind It.Copyright law draws a line that is easy to describe but often harde...
26/08/2026

The Law Protects the Work. Not the Thought Behind It.

Copyright law draws a line that is easy to describe but often harder to apply: an idea is not protected simply because someone thought of it first.

What copyright protects is the way that idea is expressed.

Two people can start with the same concept and produce entirely different works. A story about betrayal, a photograph of the same building, a campaign built around the same theme or a song about the same experience can all exist alongside one another. The legal question is not usually who had the broad idea first. It is whether someone has taken a protected expression of that idea.

That distinction matters because ideas need room to circulate. If the first person to think of a concept could control every later version of it, creative work would become difficult very quickly.

At the same time, the line is not always obvious. The closer a later work gets to the structure, wording, composition or other distinctive features of an earlier one, the less useful it becomes to say, “We only borrowed the idea.”

Copyright therefore protects something more specific than originality in the abstract. It protects the form creativity eventually takes.

The idea may be shared.

The expression is where the legal rights begin.

The Legal Case Can Outlast Its Own PointLitigation depends on fixing a dispute clearly enough for a court to decide it. ...
24/08/2026

The Legal Case Can Outlast Its Own Point

Litigation depends on fixing a dispute clearly enough for a court to decide it. Pleadings identify the issues, evidence is gathered around them, and the relief sought is framed against facts that may already be months or years old.

The problem is that the world around the dispute keeps moving.

Businesses change. Relationships break down, people leave, priorities shift and assets do not always retain the value they had when proceedings began. A case can therefore become legally clearer over time while becoming commercially less recognisable.

That creates a difficult tension. Litigation requires precision, but the dispute that mattered at the beginning may no longer be the one that matters most by the time the case reaches trial.

A payment claim may begin as a straightforward recovery exercise and later become a question of whether the commercial relationship is worth preserving. A fight over contractual performance may lose urgency once the underlying project has moved on. The legal merits may be unchanged, but the value of the outcome can look very different.

Litigation also creates momentum. Once costs have been incurred and positions have hardened, parties can become attached to the original objective simply because so much has already been invested in pursuing it.

Good dispute resolution therefore requires periodic re-evaluation. Not because the legal position is necessarily unstable, but because the client’s real-world position may be.

Sometimes the right response is to continue. Sometimes the remedy needs to change, the dispute needs to narrow, or settlement becomes more valuable than it was months earlier.

Courts need disputes to stand still long enough to decide them. Businesses do not have that luxury.

The strongest litigation strategy recognises both realities.

In 1837, an English court was asked how negligence should be judged when a man repeatedly ignored warnings that his hays...
21/08/2026

In 1837, an English court was asked how negligence should be judged when a man repeatedly ignored warnings that his haystack was likely to catch fire.

His argument was essentially that he should be judged according to his own best judgment. The court disagreed.

In Vaughan v Menlove, the judges instead applied an objective standard: what would a person of ordinary prudence have done in the circumstances? That idea became one of the foundations of what we now know as the “reasonable person” test.

The reasonable person is not a real person, and never was. They are a legal construct used to ask whether someone’s conduct fell below the standard society is entitled to expect.

Nearly two centuries later, this fictional person still appears across negligence law in one form or another.

The law invented someone who never existed, then spent generations asking what they would have done.

Why the Small Claims Court Works by Removing LawyersThere is something unusual about the Small Claims Court: it is a cou...
19/08/2026

Why the Small Claims Court Works by Removing Lawyers

There is something unusual about the Small Claims Court: it is a court deliberately designed to operate without attorneys or advocates representing the parties.

That is not because lawyers add no value. It is because, for certain disputes, the cost and complexity of legal representation can become disproportionate to what is actually at stake.

Since 1 August 2026, South Africa’s Small Claims Courts can hear qualifying civil claims of up to R30,000. Parties represent themselves, clerks can assist with the process, and the matter is heard by a Commissioner, usually a practising attorney or advocate who serves without remuneration. Legal advice may still be obtained beforehand, but lawyers do not argue the case for the parties in court.

The design changes the economics of a dispute.

A claim may be legally valid but commercially irrational to pursue if recovering it requires spending a significant portion of its value on litigation. Formal procedure can also make a relatively simple disagreement feel inaccessible to someone who has never dealt with a court before.

The Small Claims Court responds by removing some of that machinery. It narrows the jurisdiction, simplifies the process and asks the parties themselves to explain what happened.

There is a broader point in that design. Access to justice does not always require adding more legal process. Sometimes it requires deciding which parts of the process are genuinely necessary for the dispute in front of us.

For small claims, less formality does not mean less law. It means the legal system has been designed so that enforcing a modest right does not require a disproportionate legal apparatus.

Finding the Error Is Only Half the JudgmentJudicial review does not end when a court finds that a public decision was un...
17/08/2026

Finding the Error Is Only Half the Judgment

Judicial review does not end when a court finds that a public decision was unlawful. The harder question is often what should happen next.

That issue was central to the Constitutional Court’s recent Sustaining the Wild Coast judgment. The case concerned an exploration right for oil and gas exploration along the Wild Coast and later renewals. The High Court set those decisions aside. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed that they were unlawful, but suspended that result pending a further renewal process. The Constitutional Court ultimately restored the High Court’s order.

The broader point is that unlawful decisions can have consequences long before a court reaches them. A licence may lead to investment. A permit may trigger contracts. Communities and businesses may organise their affairs around the assumption that a decision is valid.

By the time the error is identified, simply turning the clock back may no longer be simple.

That is why courts must still decide what remedy is just and equitable. The seriousness of the defect, the interests of affected parties, constitutional rights and practical consequences may all matter.

But flexibility also carries a risk. If the consequences of an unlawful decision become the reason for allowing it to remain effective, the longer it operates, the harder it may become to undo.

Review proceedings are therefore not only about finding mistakes. Remedies determine what those findings actually mean.

Finding the error answers whether a decision was lawful. Crafting the remedy decides what happens because of it.

When Marriage was Treated as ConsentUntil 1993, South African common law recognised a marital r**e exemption. In effect,...
14/08/2026

When Marriage was Treated as Consent

Until 1993, South African common law recognised a marital r**e exemption. In effect, a husband could not be convicted of ra**ng his wife simply because they were married. Section 5 of the Prevention of Family Violence Act changed that position and expressly allowed a husband to be convicted of the r**e of his wife.

What is striking is the legal assumption underneath the old rule.

Marriage was treated as doing something that consent ordinarily cannot do: giving permission permanently, in advance.

That is a very different idea from modern sexual-offences law, where the question is whether there was consent to the sexual act itself. South Africa’s 2007 Sexual Offences Act subsequently replaced the common-law offence of r**e with a statutory offence centred on sexual pe*******on without consent, irrespective of gender.

The legal change therefore went further than recognising another category of criminal conduct. It rejected the idea that entering one legal relationship could remove a person’s ability to say no within it.

And it happened only 33 years ago.

Some legal reforms change what conduct is prohibited. Others expose the assumption that made the old rule possible in the first place.

Merit Does Not Develop in a VacuumMerit is usually treated as though it can be measured cleanly.Who has handled the bigg...
12/08/2026

Merit Does Not Develop in a Vacuum

Merit is usually treated as though it can be measured cleanly.

Who has handled the bigger matters? Who has led more complex work? Who has the stronger client base, the deeper experience or the longer record of leadership?
Those are reasonable questions. The difficulty is that experience has to come from somewhere.

In the legal profession, major briefs, meaningful client exposure and opportunities to lead complex matters are part of how authority is built. South Africa’s own briefing policies recognise that access to work affects who is able to develop, become commercially sustainable and ultimately compete for senior roles. In 2024/25, 42% of State briefs went to female legal practitioners.

The pipeline tells a similar story. Women make up about 60% of candidate attorneys, but around 45% of practising attorneys. That drop does not explain itself, but it does raise an important question about what happens between entry and progression.

That matters because someone can be formally admitted to a profession and still receive fewer of the opportunities that later become evidence of “merit”.

Unequal opportunity does not erase talent, effort or individual achievement. It simply means that those things do not develop in identical conditions.

So, when two candidates are compared ten years later, the difference on their CVs may be real. But it may also reflect who was trusted with the difficult matter, introduced to the important client, invited into the room or given the chance to lead.

Merit still matters. Institutions also have to account for how merit gets built.

If opportunity is distributed unevenly for long enough, the resulting gap will eventually start to look like a neutral measure of ability. That is precisely why access to meaningful work cannot be treated as incidental.

Address

Stonemill Office Park, 300 Acacia Road
Johannesburg
2195

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00
Thursday 08:00 - 17:00
Friday 08:00 - 17:00

Telephone

+27115686837

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lopes Attorneys Inc posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Lopes Attorneys Inc:

Shortcuts

Share

Category