Fugitive South African attorney Ronald Bobroff is asking the Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSW), in Sydney, Australia to re-enrol him as a solicitor (attorney).

The presiding officer in the hearing, which is enrolled for Tuesday 19 August 2026, is Ms. Jennifer Hedge, a Registrar of the Supreme Court.

The role of a Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales is, according to its website, “to determine applications made before a trial when identifying the issues in dispute, including applications in relation to the discovery and inspection of documents, interrogatories and subpoenas. Registrars issue court orders, enter default judgments and issue writs of execution. They deal with a range of matters under the Corporations Law, including the dissolution of companies and the examination of company officers. Registrars also conduct examinations under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Commonwealth). In the Common Law Division registrars conduct pre-trial conferences to ensure that cases are ready for trial. Registrars who are appropriately qualified are also available to mediate cases referred to them by the court.”

Ronald Bobroff was first admitted as a solicitor of the NSW Supreme Court on 4 June 1999. Whilst the reasons for the removal of his name from the Roll of Solicitors is not clear, what we do know is that at a meeting of the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales on 27 November 2025 it was resolved that Bobroff was “not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate” and that the “disciplinary action” was a “refusal for grant of Australian practising certificate entitling him to engage in legal practice as a principal of a law practice for the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026”.

Now that 30 June 2026 has come and gone, the 79-year-old Bobroff wants to have his final shot at plundering the funds of hapless clients who might engage his services, unaware of the professional and judicial findings against him, the fact that his name, together with his son Darren Bobroff, was struck from the Roll of Attorneys in Pretoria, South Africa in December 2016. Darren Bobroff now goes under the name of Doron Bobrow.

In South Africa a client’s funds are protected by a statutory body called the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund (LPFF). Bobroff trumpets the ‘fact’ that no one has ever claimed against the LPFF in respect of money is stolen by him or his son. This is true. What Bobroff and son omit to tell people is that that they have been successfully sued on multiple occasions and were obliged to part with millions of rands of capital and interest owing to former clients of their eponymous Rosebank, Gauteng law firm, Ronald Bobroff & Partners Incorporated, following the February 2014 de la Guerre decision by the Constitutional Court.

Bobroff also maintains that there was never a finding by a professional body against him and his son. This is untrue. There were five cases placed before an Investigating Committee of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (LSNP). These covered theft by the Bobroffs from former clients Juanné de la Guerre and quadriplegic Anthony de Pontes, and rampant touting in Netcare’s private hospitals – something that Netcare bosses were unaware of and which they brought to a halt the moment that it was brought to their attention. Read the 173 page judgment which was handed down on 2 February 2015 here and here.

In March 2016 the Bobroffs had via their attorney, Ulrich Roux, agreed to hand themselves over the police early one morning to be processed and taken to court and bailed. Instead, Darren Bobroff and his family fled the country for Sydney followed a few days later by Ronald Bobroff, who said that he feared for his life and had to abandon his wife in Johannesburg.

The South African Police arranged an Interpol Red Notice for Ronald and for Darren. They are still on the run from the authorities.

When the Supreme Court in Sydney eventually sits to contemplate whether Ronald Bobroff has been reformed and has redeemed himself to the extent that he can be regarded as a fit and proper person to be let loose on the litigating public, it will no doubt look at the New South Wales ruling in Bobroff v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 122 (14 August 2019). In this matter, the Australian authorities had to consider whether Darren Bobroff (Doron Bobrow) was a fit and proper person to handle trust monies in respect of immovable property transactions. Whilst this matter is not binding on the judges of the Supreme Court, the judge who hears the matter will no doubt have regard to the South African caselaw concerning the Bobroffs and which is contained in this ruling.

South African sources told this journalist that an extradition request from the South African government was in the pipeline. It is understood that the South African authorities intend to rebut any contention by the Bobroffs that South African jails are unsafe, by relying on the 2014 case of Shrien Dewani. Dewani was extradited from the United Kingdom on a Gulfstream jet, chartered by the South African government, which brought him directly from Bristol to Cape Town. It will be contended that the Bobroffs should have no concern for their safety in custody or that they will not receive a fair trial. Dewani was looked after when in custody in South Africa and was acquitted by a competent court (Justice Jeanette Traverso) at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. Dewani was not required to take the stand in his own defence.

One former client of the Bobroffs who is longing to see them face-to-face on South African soil is Filipe Pombo. In September 2015, Pombo was owed R1,425 million plus interest at 15,% percent per annum dating back to 2009. When, in September 2015, Pombo launched his court application, the Bobroff’s offered to pay a tiny amount to avoid Darren Bobroff having to explain under oath why and how a cheque made payable to “F Pombo” ended up in Darren’s bank account.

Another factor that the Supreme Court will most probably take into account is that in May 2021 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein declared the Bobroffs to be thieves, and ordered forfeit to the state R95 million being the proceeds of crime, “to be paid into the Criminal Assets Recovery Account established under section 63 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will say of Ronald Bobroff what many people are saying in South Africa: Ronald Bobroff has taken almost everything from his former clients. The only thing that he has not taken is responsibility.”