The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development today had a robust discussion with the Legal Practice Council (LPC) on disciplinary matters against legal professionals and other challenges.
Committee Chairperson Mr Xola Nqola said the committee invited the LPC to Parliament because, as representatives of the public, committee Members have a specific interest in matters where vulnerable members of the public do not receive justice because of unscrupulous legal practitioners.
“The public suffer. They are victims due to the conduct by some attorneys. We cannot watch people suffer due to malpractice of legal practitioners. Attorneys cannot be receiving millions of rands in payout for medico-legal or road accident claims and clients see very little of it,” the Chairperson said.
The committee heard that the LPC is a non-profit organisation that depends on the levies charged to legal practitioners. LPC levies are R4 600 annually, which some legal practitioners do not pay; currently, it is owed R157 million in unpaid or uncollected levies.
The committee heard that as of 19 November 2024, the LPC has 22 415 registered unresolved complaints. Currently, 1 100 law firms across all provinces are under curatorship and 900 of these are based in Gauteng. Moneys under curatorship in LPC trust accounts amount to R 300 million.
During the period January 2024 to 15 November 2024, 55 legal practitioners were struck off the roll and during the same period 62 legal practitioners were suspended from the roll of legal practitioners.
“The committee noted the comments made by the LPC that in some instances you will find the same legal practitioners still working after being struck off the roll, just not appearing in court as they are briefing advocates. This is totally unacceptable and clearly a loophole that needs to be addressed,” add Mr Nqola.
The committee heard that the disciplinary process outlined in the Legal Practice Act is cumbersome and time-consuming and, while substantial amendments to the Act may not be feasible, there are potential improvements that could expedite the process. The disciplinary process is also heavily reliant on the availability of legal practitioners, whose practice-related priorities often take precedence over LPC hearings.
The committee was also addressed by Judge Siraj Desai, the first legal services Ombudsperson. He did not mince his words and told the committee that theft in the industry is rampant, with many millions stolen by attorneys on a daily basis. He said he has never seen this level of misappropriation in all his days in the legal profession. Judge Desai supported the LPC’s calls to have the Act amended and he called for action in order to protect the integrity of the profession.
Mr Nqola elaborated: “We heard from the Ombud that it is reaching crisis proportions. As public representatives, it is our responsibility to make sure the vulnerable are protected. We have seen more and more media reports about maladministration by legal practitioners. Not only that, the SIU briefed the committee on such practices. We need to do something to stop this malfeasance.
“We note the call for amendment of the Legal Practice Act. Lawmaking can take a long time and therefore, as an immediate measure, it would be prudent to request the Minister to draft regulations that can serve as an interim measure,” emphasised Mr Nqola.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.
