LEGAL PRACTITIONERS and Other Service Providers!

1 hour Response Time


This is your FIRST STEP if you are looking for legal or professional support. We:

  • Guarantee a response within 1 working hour,
  • Are uncomplicated, friendly and professional,
  • Our fees are sensitive to the South African economy,
  • Have a team of professionals in all major Cities,
  • Function with integrity, attention to detail and are objective driven,
  • Use technology, innovation and internal processes to streamline your experience,
  • Strive to improve the sector we operate in.



In our ‘team’ we have Legal Practitioners (Lawyers & Attorneys) and other Professionals who offer parallel solutions. Our website menu items LEGAL PRACTITIONERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS offer a summary of services and will help you decide which type of service provider to use. Please review both pages. Afterwards, if you are still not sure who to use please ask for guidance using the Immediate Action Form on the Contacts Page.



For free services you could engage with an organization such as or visit for free information. Depending on your issue any of the following organizations might be appropriate and mandated to help for free:

  • The National Consumer Commission,
  • CGSO,
  • CCMA,
  • Housing Tribunal,
  • For insurance or banking issues, you should contact the appropriate ombudsman.

If you are looking to hire a Professional we guarantee that the fees quoted will be reasonable and you will not be charged anything until you have accepted a quote or entered into an engagement letter. Payment options will be communicated and might include hourly, per project, fixed rate or retainer. See a Cost Guideline HERE. The use of a Legal Practitioner or Court should be engaged with only once you have exhausted all amicable and free options, or if the matter at hand needs legal guidance and an expert to expedite a solution.


An E-Consult is an effective way to receive expedited support for select, once off or ad hoc matters. Please visit the menu item for more information on this process. CLICK HERE



South African Working days. No public holidays.

  • Monday-Thursday from 09h00-13h00 and 14h00-16h00.
  • Friday 09h00-13h00.



Patenting (Human) Genes

- Featured article by RADEMEYER ATTORNEYS

The Monopoly on Genetic Human Genes

The US Supreme Court recently decided this very issue in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Myriad Genetics carries out tests for BRCA genes, the genes responsible for diagnosing an elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Patients can undergo genetic testing to see if they have mutations in their genes that are associated with a significantly increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Woman with the faulty gene have a three to seven times greater risk of developing breast cancer and also have a higher risk of ovarian cancer. This form of testing r ecently made news headlines when Angelina Jolie revealed that she had a double mastectomy after one of the BRCA genes was identified.

Myriad obtained patent protection for the two human genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2 which correlate with this increased ri sk, along with cDNA, which is a synthetic product that mirrors the coding sections of the BRCA genes.

These patents granted Myriad the right to control access to the BRCA genes and prohibited others from researching or doing diagnostic testing of the genes.

In their patents, Myriad claimed protection for every naturally - occurring version of those genes, including mutations, on the basis that they had invented something by isolating the genes from the body. The Association of Molecular Pathology “AMP” repr esenting a variety of genetic researchers, medical organizations and patients, all of whom had been accused of infringing on Myriads patents on the BRCA genes, contended that human genes were not patentable on the basis that they are a product of nature. P atent protection cannot be obtained for products of nature by virtue of Section 101 of the United States Code and AMP alleged that the mere fact that the genes were isolated from the body did not mean that it was patentable.

The Supreme Court agreed with AMP and held that the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were naturally occurring and were therefore not patentable. However, it was held that the synthetically created genetic material, or cDNA, was patentable.

The decision has had mixed reviews. While the decision c omes as a relief to geneticists who can now make use of the BRCA genes, companies involved in biotechnology research might find it to be a financial blow by limiting commercial incentives to continue researching into DNA.

In the wake of this decision, com panies and universities announced that they will provide the tests for the BRCA genes. Myriad last week sued two such companies, Ambry Genetics and Gene by Gene, claiming that the tests infringed other patents owed by Myriad which had not been invalidated by the court.

The outcome of this on - going litigation will help to shape the biotechnology research industry and the way in which companies approach the protection of the fruits of their research and development.

Legal information

Hillary Brennan – Candidate Attorney
Roy Taberer – Partner

Patenting Human Genes - Legal Information South Africa