3. He commenced solo practice on March 1, 2000, under the name and style of Gavin Joynt Attorneys. To this day, his name remains on the list of lawyers. [1] [7] Until her suspension, the defendant practised as a self-employed individual practitioner under the name Katy Van der Merwe Attorneys („the firm” or the „firm”) at 40 Van Graan Road, Casseldale, Springs, Gauteng Province. 20. In her affidavit, the applicant submits that the responsibility for submitting audit reports to the Board rests with the respondent and not with its auditors and that, as counsel, he is guilty of violating the applicants` rules because he practised without issuing a trust fund certificate. [20] 11.2. Second, if the Court is satisfied that the unlawful conduct has been established, a judgment of appreciation is necessary to decide whether the person concerned is not fit and fit to practise as a lawyer. [8] In other words, the court should weigh the conduct complained of against that expected of a lawyer.
19.2. With regard to the unpaid fine imposed on him by the Council, he found guilty on 1 December 2014 of a charge for which he was fined R 10 000.00, payable in monthly instalments of R 2000 per month. [17] However, his affidavit does not expressly deny that, when this fine was reduced, he paid only R 2500 for that fine. It is also apparent from his affidavit why he did not pay the balance of the fine imposed by the Council for Legal Practice and, moreover, he ignores the fact that, as a result, he did not attend a subsequent disciplinary hearing. [49] This inquiry involves a value judgment in which the conduct complained of is weighed against the conduct expected of counsel. The allegations against the accused are very serious. A lawyer must strictly comply and comply with the provisions of the AHR Act, the Code of Conduct and the rules published therein. The respondent breached the fundamental duties of counsel. She is therefore guilty of unprofessional conduct. The respondent is a respected and honourable member of the scholarly profession and, in entering the profession, has committed himself with complete and unquestionable integrity to society as a whole, to the courts and to the profession. Their conduct does not meet the very high level of honour expected of practitioners practicing this profession.
His behaviour does not show the bad faith and integrity that the public can rely on when acting as an agent. In our view, the respondent can no longer be considered fit to practise as a lawyer. 8. Such requests are sui generis and disciplinary. There is no legal existence between the applicant and the defendant. The plaintiff, as guardian of the profession, merely submits the facts to the Court for review. [6] [37] The action was commenced under section 44(1) of the PCPA. The provisions of the AHR Act do not affect the power of the court to adjudicate matters and make orders respecting the conduct of counsel.[2] 18. In this case, the author of the affidavit lists the following breaches that led the applicant to initiate these proceedings: [42] The court and the applicant are required to act when a lawyer`s conduct does not meet expectations and to curb the erosion of values in the profession. The protection of the public goes hand in hand with the court`s obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and the legal profession. Public confidence in the legal profession and the courts is inevitably undermined if strict requirements for professional membership are watered down.
[4] The applicant is the South African Council of Legal Practice („the Board”). The Council was established pursuant to section 4 of the Law on the Practice of Law[1] („AHR Act”) as a body with full legal capacity to exercise jurisdiction over all legal practitioners, as provided for in the AHR Act. The PCPA came into force on November 1, 2018. 28. In view of the gravity of the infringements and the large number of those infringements, I therefore consider that the defendant is not fit to continue practising as a lawyer. The only appropriate sanction is therefore to exclude the respondent from the legal profession. Any other order will send the wrong message to the public that misconduct of this gravity will be tolerated by the courts. 24. In light of all of what has been submitted to us, it is clear that the respondent does not want to take responsibility for his misconduct and apparently blames everyone but himself. It continues to demonstrate an untenable attitude towards the legal framework and has repeatedly expressed contempt for the applicant`s institution. [12] The respondent acted on behalf of Mr.
Kotze in a debt collection case in which Mr. Kotze was a debtor. On 9 October 2015, Mr Kotze paid R16,351.82 into the defendant`s escrow account, which was paid to his creditors to settle a debt owed by him and legal costs. Mr. Kotze considered the debt settled until the sheriff attempted to seize his property on January 23, 2018. He found that the respondent had not paid its funds to the creditor`s counsel as indicated. Instead, it had spread the debt payment and legal costs over several payments between November 2, 2015 and April 3, 2017. The defendant also failed to pay the full amount to the creditor`s lawyers. He paid only the sum of R14,351.00 for the debt. As a result of the defendant`s conduct, Mr. Kotze had to make further payments to the creditor for additional interest and costs. Reddy investigated the complaint during his inspection of the respondent`s professional affairs.
The respondent confirmed the installment payments to counsel for Mr. Kotze`s creditors. Reddy found that four of the eleven payments made by the respondent to counsel for Mr. Kotze`s creditors had not been paid from his escrow account. According to Reddy, statements from the respondent`s trust bank indicate that the defendant used Mr. Kotze`s funds for various transfers and payment of various withdrawals and that the escrow account had a zero balance as of February 1, 2016. For Mr Kotze alone, the account should have contained an amount of R7 851.82. Reddy noted that the respondent`s misappropriation of these funds resulted in a lack of trust. [41] In General Council of the Bar of South Africa v Geach & Others,[7] the FCC stated with respect to legal practitioners: 1.
GAVIN VERNON JOYNT (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is suspended from his practice as counsel to this honourable court. 6.9 The practice of the respondent as counsel of this honourable court vis-à-vis the trustee appointed in accordance with subsection 5, provided that the defendant is entitled to reasonable access to such records, records, records and accounting documents, but always under the supervision of such trustee or the person designated by him. 25.3 On 1 August 2018, she informed the Board of the details of her practice, the opening of her new escrow account with FNB and the closure of her Nedbank escrow account.