KEY POINTS
- The legal profession removed the lawyer from practice because she tried to hide her mistake in processing a delictual claim.
- The judicial decision evaluated both her compensation payments and personal living situation before making its determination.
- Judge Lekhuleni decided that professional suspension would improperly deprive the lawyer of her income needed to support her family.
The attorney barely avoided professional expulsion due to his attempt to hide his mistake which led to the expiration of a delictual lawsuit.
The Legal Practice Council (LPC) attempted to remove her legal practitioner status because she provided her client with false information about a settlement with the South African Police Service (SAPS).
The Western Cape High Court determined a suspension for the lawyer was inappropriate due to her acquired knowledge and the negative influence this punishment would create throughout her family.
The incident and legal consequences
A mistake with scheduling the issuance of summons resulted in the expiration of the claim because the lawyer failed to follow proper procedure.
During her efforts to settle the matter she confirmed that the claim was settled while asking how much the complainant would accept.
The complainant accepted R350,000 that the lawyer distributed through personal payments to the complainant. During attempts to solve the issue the lawyer resisted showing evidence of settlement so the complainant filed a report with LPC.
The LPC launched an inquiry about the matter that led both the Investigating and Disciplinary Committees to declare the attorney guilty of misconduct. The authorities first imposed a R12,000 fine on the practitioner which grew to R45,000 before recommending suspension for practicing law.
Considering these circumstances the court judge offered leniency due to her show of remorse along with her substantial payment of R458,000 and her status as both mother and only income earner.
Judge Lekhuleni’s compassionate ruling
The dishonesty shown by the attorney was grave but Judge James Lekhuleni declined disbarment due to its severity. The judge recognized how the defendant’s young and inexperienced status together with the high level of pressure influenced her decision making process.
The judge decided against additional suspension because the lawyer’s family along with her financial needs could not withstand continued professional inactivity.
The court announced that ethical misconduct leading to disciplinary actions must be evaluated with regard to remorse from the professional and full reimbursement to the victims.
