Unethical Surge: South Africa’s Legal Profession Faces Integrity Crisis 

The South African legal profession is facing a troubling rise in unethical practices, with a growing number of legal practitioners facing disciplinary action. The Legal Practice Council has listed 50 practitioners suspended or struck off the roll as of August 2024, raising concerns about the integrity of the justice system. High-profile cases and increasing inquiries highlight a decline in ethical standards, threatening public trust. 

With the growing number of legal practitioners facing disciplinary action, it would seem that the South African legal profession is grappling with a troubling rise in unethical practices among its ranks, raising concerns about the justice system’s integrity. South African law reports are now rife with cases of law bodies seeking to remove or suspend legal practitioners from the roll. As of August 26, 2024, the Legal Practice Council (LPC), which assumed oversight of the profession in 2018, listed 50 practitioners who have been either suspended or struck off the roll. 

In the case of Grundler N.O and Another v Zulu and Others, Acting Judge Shapiro highlighted the alarming trend of legal practitioners showing contempt for the judiciary—a trend that undermines the oath taken by lawyers upon their admission to the profession,   undermining public trust and threatening to erode the foundations of legal regulation that society relies on for fairness and accountability. 

This surge in disciplinary cases is accompanied by increased inquiries into alleged misconduct. Between May 22 and August 14, 2024, the LPC held at least 49 inquiries, not counting those already suspended or removed. The names of high-profile cases—such as Advocate Nomgcobo Jiba, Advocate Malesela Teffo, and the infamous fraud case involving thirteen Pretoria Bar advocates—are stark reminders of this growing issue. Equally troubling are the protracted cases of impeached Judge President John Hlophe and Judge Nkola Motata, which continue to cast a shadow over the judiciary. 

Recent cases, include Lembore and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, where the Johannesburg High Court imposed costs against lawyers for abusing court processes, and the case of Mr Zuko Nonxuba, who misappropriated funds from vulnerable clients. The absolute abundance of cases raise an uncomfortable question: have legal practitioners forgotten what it means to be “fit and proper” individuals? 

The courts, both in South Africa and abroad, have consistently emphasised the crucial role of legal practitioners in upholding justice. In Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW, the High Court of Australia noted that lawyers must possess honesty and integrity to ensure the public enjoys the full protection of the law. Similarly, the Singapore High Court in Attorney-General v Shahira Bunu d/o Khaja Moinudeen stressed the importance of honesty in achieving just outcomes. 

In South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal has reiterated that legal practitioners play a vital role in upholding the ideals of the Constitution. However, the growing number of ethical breaches suggests that some practitioners have lost sight of these high standards. This decline in ethical behaviour is not just a professional issue—it poses a real threat to public trust in the legal system, undermining the very foundation of justice. As O’Regan AJA pointed out in Witvlei Meat (Pty) Ltd and Others v Disciplinary Committee for Legal Practitioners and Others, public mistrust of the legal profession erodes confidence in the entire legal system, leading to scepticism toward all legal practitioners, even those who remain committed to ethical practice. 

Institutions like law faculties, the Legal Practice Council and the General Council of the Bar of South Africa must take urgent steps to address the problem. As they do so, they might look to the professional lives of legal luminaries such as Chief Justices Arthur Chaskalson and Pius Langa for inspiration.  

Moreover, when faced with applications to strike off or suspend legal practitioners courts must heed the warning of Leach JA in Hewetson v Law Society of the Free State [2020] 3 All SA 15 (SCA): He observed, “…a suspension holds the potential hazard to the public of errant attorneys [and advocates] being returned to practice without having to satisfy either their professional organisation or the court that they have in fact reformed and have become fit and proper to practise. Consequently, the discretion to suspend must be conservatively exercised…[E]even in cases which do not involve dishonesty, in order to stem an erosion of professional misconduct the court should adopt a conservative rather than a “kid-gloves” approach. A court should therefore not be influenced by maudlin sympathy in considering whether suspension rather than striking-off is the appropriate remedy. After all, its main consideration is to protect the public, not to feel sorry for a person whose conduct has fallen short of the mark.” In short and to conclude, they should exercise their discretion conservatively, prioritising the protection of the public over leniency for those who have fallen short!