SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 54307/21
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE: 2026-03-03
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Applicant
and
GEORGE SMITH Respondent
(Identity number: 4[…])
JUDGMENT
POTTERILL J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, the South African Legal Practice Council [LPC] is seeking the
suspension of the respondent, Mr George Smith [Smith]. In the judgment where I
refer to "Smith", it is with no disrespect intended.
[2] In terms of a statutory succession the LPC is the regulatory body for attorneys
and the legal profession. Section 116(2) of the Legal Practice Act [the LPA] provides
that any proceedings in respect of the suspension of any person from practice as an
advocate, attorney, conveyancer or notary or in respect of the removal of the name
of any person from the roll of advocates, attorneys, conveyancers or notaries which
have been instituted in terms of any law repealed by the LPA and which have not
been concluded at the date of the commencement of the LPA, must be continued
and concluded as if that law had not been repealed. For this purpose, a reference in
the provisions relating to such suspension or removal to the Law Society must be
construed as a reference to the Council.
[3] Smith was admitted as an attorney on 28 April 2017. He is practising as a
legal practitioner for his own account as Smith (George) Attorneys.
[4] The LPC set out that Smith had deviated from the standards of professional
conduct to such an extent that he is not fit and proper t o continue to practise as an
attorney.
[5] The reason for this is that Smith contravened Rule 54.21 read with Rules
54.23 and 54.24 of the Rules of the LPC read with Rule 16.3 of the Code Conduct by
not timeously submitting his firm's opening audit report, since the inception of the
firm on 5 May 2017, to the end of the fourth full calendar month following the
commencement of his practice. There is thus no record that Smith kept and
maintained his accounting records as required by the LPA's rules and Code o f
Conduct. There is no record that at all relevant times he had sufficient monies in his
trust bank account to meet his obligations to trust creditors.
[6] Furthermore, Smith contravened Rule 54.24.1 read with Rules 54.20, 54.22
and 54.23 of the Rules of the LPC in that he did not submit his audit report within six
months of the annual closing of the accounting records of the firm for the years
months of the annual closing of the accounting records of the firm for the years
ending February 2019 and February 2020.
[7] Smith also did not pay his annual subscription fees to the LPC as a nd when it
became due. Also, he breached section 85(1)(b) of the LPA, read with Rule 27.1 of
LPC rules that he failed to successfully complete the required Legal Practice
Management Course and to submit a Practice Management Certificate to the LPC by
31 December 2018.
[8] Section 84(1) of the LPA provides that every attorney practising for his own
account must be in possession of a Fidelity Fund Certificate. This is peremptory and
a contravention thereof is an offence. 1 Rule 54.29 provides that before a Fi delity
Fund Certificate can be issued to a practitioner the practitioner must ensure that
there is an unqualified audit or inspector's report issued to the practitioner. Smith
submitted no auditor's reports and was accordingly not issued with Fidelity Fund
Certificates.
[9] I interpose to set out that the matter has a protracted history. Smith first
received notice of the intended suspension on 11 November 2020. In October 2021
the application was issued. On 9 November 2021 a return of non -service was issued
by the Sherif f. An application for substituted service was issued, but before it was
heard Smith filed a "deposition" in answer. This deposition was uploaded on to
Caselines only on 28 November 2024 despite the hearing date being 12 November
2024. The LPC removed the matter from the roll, but it proceeded to a virtual hearing
where the matter was removed from the roll. In August 2025 Smith brought a review
application in respect of a PAJA request made to the LPC.
[10] The LPC applied that, with the leave of the Court, the supplementary affidavit
of the LPC be entertained. Smith had no objection thereto. The LPC had received
three complaints after the first hearing. This Court accepted the supplementary
affidavit. Smith was afforded an opportunity to answer thereto.
[11] One complaint emanates from a Mr Naidoo. He sought the services of Smith
to prevent his motor vehicle being attached by MFC. To that end he paid R30 000
into Smith's account but the vehicle was handed back and Smith refused to refund
into Smith's account but the vehicle was handed back and Smith refused to refund
the money. Smith answered the complaint that he charged 20 hours of work and that
the money paid by Naidoo covers the amount due to him for services rendered.
1 Section 93(8) of the LPA
[12] Mr Fourie lodged a complaint that he had paid in R30 000 to Smith to help
with an illegal eviction, but he never helped him. When attempting to meet, Fourie
was not allowed to see Smith at his offices, the only manner of communication
allowed was by means of whatsapp.
[13] Ms Pienaar lodged a complaint that they paid in R25 000, but Sm ith never
assisted them. He did not go to court with either excuses that he was too sick to go
to Court, or that he would arrange a "specialist attorney." They had to be in court on
15 September 2023, but on the day of the hearing Smith called Ms Pienaar a nd told
her she should go to court alone as all his "specialist lawyers" were fully booked.
They had paid R135 000.00, but received no receipt or statement.
Smith's opposition
[14] In his answering affidavit he acknowledged that he has not complied with t he
contraventions complained of excepting for the Practice Management Training
Course because this requirement was only implemented in September 2019 and he
was admitted in 2017.
[15] However, he has exceptional circumstances as to why he could not comply
with the LPA and Rules. The accountant and auditor, both of whom he knows well,
have refused to complete the audit reports as he owes them money. This was during
the Covid period. He is however awaiting their quotation because they have agreed
to complete the work.
[16] In 1993 the Department of Home Affairs issued a second identity to an
unknown person that resulted in credit issues and financial liability for debts that
were not his. He was in fact declared dead on an unknown date. The Covid -19
pandemic a ffected his ability to access necessary resources. He had applied for
financial assistance from the LPC/AFF but he did not qualify. Furthermore, he
contends that in terms of the Older Persons Act 13 of 2006 the LPC must take
cognisance of the predicaments of older persons.
[17] In a supplementary affidavit filed Smith avers this application should have
been preceded by a disciplinary hearing. He further sets out that the LPC has
damaged his professional reputation and has breached their duty of confidential ity.
He was denied the right to appear in the High Court by the LPC. He seeks a "setting
aside of summons", "Reconsideration of the Exemption Application" and costs.
[18] In two applications, classified as urgent, Smith again raises the issue that this
application is premature because no disciplinary hearing was held. In the other
urgent application an interdict is sought to prevent suspension because he does not
have a Fidelity Fund Certificate and his constitutional right to freely choose and
practise a profession is violated. Furthermore, he seeks to interdict the disciplinary
complaint raised by Naidoo. He also seeks relief that this Court must grant him a
right of appearance.
Must the PAJA application be granted?
[19] This Court entertained the inte rlocutory applications. This application cannot
be granted simply because the information sought was sent to Smith on 30 July
2025. Despite this Smith has refused to withdraw the application. This application is
dismissed with costs.
Must the urgent application succeed?
[20] The urgent application revolves around his disciplinary hearing based on
Naidoo's complaint. There is no basis in fact or law set out for this interdict to be
granted. None of the requirements for an interdict is addressed in the found ing
affidavit and there is no basis in law to interdict the disciplinary hearing against Smith.
[21] Smith avers that the LPC is breaching the Constitution by refusing to provide
him with a Fidelity Fund Certificate in that it violates his right to freely choose and
practise a profession. This Court cannot find that such a breach exists. As a legal
practitioner he must comply with sections 84 and 85 of the LPA in that he cannot
practitioner he must comply with sections 84 and 85 of the LPA in that he cannot
practise if he is not provided with a Fidelity Fund certificate. Smith is disqualified from
practising for his failure to comply with legislative prescripts. He can practise his
chosen profession, but must comply with the Rules. The right to practise is limited by
compliance with the Rules.
[22] This Court has no jurisdiction to circu mvent the Act and Rules and grant
Smith right of appearance. Smith must comply with section 25(3) of the LPA read
with Rule 20 to obtain a right of appearance. This Court cannot ignore those
requirements and grant Smith a right of appearance. Seeking this right in violation of
the LPC shows a lack of insight from Smith.
[23] He also seeks that the LPC is to pay him an interim m onthly stipend of R50
000.00, or such amount as the Court finds just pending a final determination of his
claim for compensation against the LPC. There is no basis in law for this Court to
grant such order and it is dismissed.
[24] All the prayers sought in the urgent motion are dismissed.
Were the contraventions committed?
[25] Smith conceded that excepting for his opening audit he has not provided the
LPC with any audited financial statements and has been practising without a Fidelity
Fund Certificate since 2018. In his oral submission to this Court he admitted that he
is still practising in 2026 without a Fidelity Fund Certificate, despite this application
being pending since November 2020.
[26] Even, if at best for Smith, the Court accepts that he did file his first audit report
and he did not need to attend the Legal Practice Management Course, it is common
cause he has since 2019, up to date, not filed audited financial statements and has
practised without a Fidelity Fund Certificate. There are compla ints from members of
the public from whom he has taken monies and despite demand, he has not repaid
the amounts sought by the complainants 2. Smith cannot provide a single financial
statement to provide reckoning of the monies. In terms of section 41 an attorney may
not practise for his own account for reward without being in possession of a Fidelity
2 See paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of this Judgement
Fund Certificate and in fact it is a criminal offence in terms of section 83(1) to
practise without a Fidelity Fund Certificate. In considering such an applicat ion this
Court must first decide whether the offending conduct was established on a
preponderance of probabilities and secondly whether Smith is a fit and proper
person to continue to practise.
[27] As stated above, excluding the Practice Management Course as a
transgression, Smith has made himself guilty of dishonourable, unworthy and/or
unprofessional conduct. The nature of the proceedings was reiterated in Van den
Berg v General Council of the Bar of South Africa (270/06) [2007] ZASCA16; [2007]
SCA 16 (RSA) (22 March 2007) par [2] as: "The applicant's role in bringing such
proceedings is not that of an ordinary adversarial litigant but is rather to bring
evidence of a practitioner's misconduct to the a ttention of the Court, the profession
and the public at large, to enable a court to exercise its disciplinary powers."
[28] The complaint that the LPC is preventing him from earning money is devoid
from substance. As an attorney, Smith simply cannot be obl ivious to the fact that to
qualify for a Fidelity Fund Certificate his auditors needed to attest that the financial
affairs of the practice were compliant with the relevant LPC's Rules and Statutory
prescripts. Smith is thus the author of his own misfortun e. Seeking from this Court
then appearance to defend shows a clear lack of understanding and is in fact
preposterous.3 It is indeed worrisome that he persists with practising despite the
pending suspension application.
[29] Having regard to the conduct of Smith it is clear that he indeed made himself
guilty of unprofessional, dishonourable or unworthy conduct. Lodging auditor reports
as required serves as a safety mechanism for the public's and clients' money and is
a prerequisite for an attorney to be iss ued with a Fidelity Fund certificate. In failing to
a prerequisite for an attorney to be iss ued with a Fidelity Fund certificate. In failing to
do so Smith has not aspired to meet the standard of behaviour which is required of
an attorney.
3 Matsi and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (Gauteng) 184/2024
[2026] ZASCA. 12 (06 February 2026)
[30] I am satisfied that Smith is not a fit and proper person to continue to practise,
his conduct cannot be excused and he is suspended from the roll.
[31] I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a proper case for the related
prayers as set out in the notice of motion and in the circumstances the prayers for
costs on an attorney and client scale is granted.
[32] The draft order marked "X" is made an order of Court.
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
I agree
M. QOFA-LEBAKENG
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 54307/2021
Heard on: 5 February 2026
For the Applicant: ADV. D.P.J. SMITH
Instructed by: Mathie Jooma Sabdia Inc.
For the Respondent: In person
Date of judgment: 3 March 2026
“X”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case number: 54307/21
PRETORIA THIS 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE POTTERILL J
AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE QOFA-LEBAKENG AJ
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Applicant
and
GEORGE SMITH Respondent
(Identity number: 4[…])
DRAFT ORDER
After having heard counsel and having read the papers filed on record:-
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Respondent, GEORGE SMITH, is hereby suspended from practising as a
legal practitioner of this Honourable Court until such time he satisfies the court that
he is a fit and proper person to resume practise as a legal practitioner.
2. The Respondent surrender and delivers his certificate of enrolment as a legal
practitioner to the Registrar of this Honourable Court.
3. In the event of the Respondent failing to comply with the terms of this order
detailed in paragraph 2 (two) supra within two (2) weeks from the date of this order,
the sheriff of the district in which the certificate is, be authorised and directed to take
possession of the certificate and to hand it to the Registrar of this Honourable Court.
4. The Respondent is prohibited from handling or operating on his banking
accounts, used in receiving monies for clients (referred to herein as creditors) as
detailed in paragraph 5 (five) infra.
5. The current Director of the G auteng Pro vincial Off ice of the Applicant ( or
his/her successor as such ), in his /her capacity as such, be appointed as curator
bonis (curator) to administer and control the banking accounts of the Respondent,
including accounts relating to insolvent and deceased estates and any estate under
curatorship connected with the Respondent's practice as a legal practitioner and
including (if applicable), also, the separate banking accounts opened and kept by
Respondent at a bank in the Republic of South Africa in terms of section 86(1)&(2) of
Act No 28 of 2014 and/or any separate savings or interest bearing accounts as
contemplated by Section 86(3):
5.1 Immediately to take possession of Respondent's accounting records,
files and documents as referred to in paragraph 6 and subject to the approval
of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control (hereinafter referred
to as "the fund") to sign all forms and generally to operate upon the account(s),
but only to such e xtent and for such purpose as may be necessary to bring to
completion current transactions in which Respondent was acting at the date of
this order.
5.2 Subject to the approval and control of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity
Fund Board of Control and where monies had been paid incorrectly and
unlawfully from the undermentioned accounts, to recover and receive it, if
necessary in the interest of persons having lawful claims upon the account(s)
necessary in the interest of persons having lawful claims upon the account(s)
and/or against Respondent in respect of monies held, receiv ed by
Respondent in terms of Section 86(1)&(2) and/or Section 86(3), to take any
legal proceedings which may be necessary for the recovery of money which
may be due to such persons in respect of incomplete transactions, if any, in
which Respondent was and may still have been concerne d and to received
such monies and to pay the same credit of the account(s);
5.3 To ascertain from the Resp ondent’s records the names of all p ersons
on whos e account the Respondent appears to hold or to have received
monies (herei nafter referred to as “creditors”) and to call upon the
Respondent to furnish the Curator within 30 days of the date of this Order or
within such further period as the Curator may agree to in writing with the
names and addresses of, and amounts due to, all creditors;
5.4 To call upon such creditors to furnish such proof, information and/or
affidavits as the Curator may require to enable him/her, acting in consultation
with, and subject to the requirements of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund
Board of Control, to determine whether any such creditor has a claim in
respect of money in the said accounts and, if so, the amount of such claim;
5.5 To admit or reject, in whole or in part, subject to the approval of the
Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control, the claims of any such
creditor or creditors, without prejudice to such creditors' right of access to the
civil courts;
5.6 Having determined the amounts which, he/she considers are lawfully
due to creditors, to pay such claims in full but subject always to the approval
of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control;
5.7 In the event of there being any surplus in the account(s) of the
Respondent after payment of the admitted claims of all creditors in full, to
utilise such surplus to settle or reduce (as the case may be), firstly, any claim
of the fund in terms of Section 86(5) of Act No 28 of 2014 in respect of any
interest therein referred to and, secondly, without prejudice to the rights of the
interest therein referred to and, secondly, without prejudice to the rights of the
creditors of the Respondent, the costs, fees and expenses, referred to in
paragraph 10 of this order, or such portion thereof, as has not already been
separately paid by Respondent to Applicant, and, if there is any balance left
after payment in full of all such claims, costs, fees and expenses, to pay such
balance subject to the approval of the Legal Practitioners ’ Fidelity Fund Board
of Control, to the Re spondent, if he is solvent, or, if the Respondent is
insolvent, to the trustee(s) of the Respondent’s insolvent estate.
5.8 In the event of there being insufficient monies in the banking account(s)
of t he Re spondent, in accordance with the available documentation and
information, to pay in full the claim s of creditors who have lodged claims for
repayment and whose c laims have been approved, to distribute the credit
balance(s) which may be available in the banking account(s) amongst the
creditors alternatively to pay the balance to the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity
Fund Board of Control.
5.9 Subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Legal Practitioners'
Fidelity Fund Board of Control, to appoint nominees or representatives and/or
consult with and/or engage the service of attorneys, counsel, accountants
and/or any other persons, where considered necessary, to assist him/her in
carrying out his/her duties as curator; and
5.10 To render from time to time, as Curator, returns to the Legal
Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control showing how the account (s) of
Respondent has or have been dealt with, until such time as the Board notifies
him/her that he/she may regard his/her duties as Curator as terminated.
6. The Re spondent immediately delivers his accounting records, banking
accounts, fee book, record, files and documents containing particulars and
information relating to:
6.1 Any monies received, held or paid by the Respondent for or on account
of any person while practising as a legal practitioner;
6.2 Any estate of a deceased person or an insolvent estate or an estate
under curatorship administered by the Respondent, whether as executor or
trustee or curator or on behalf of the executor, trustee or curator;
6.3 Any insolvent estate administered by the Respondent as trustee or on
behalf of the trustee in terms of the insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936;
6.4 Any trust administered by the Respondent as trustee or on behalf of
the trustee in terms of the Trust Properties Control Act, No 57 of 1988;
6.5 Any close corporation liquidated in terms of the Close Corporation Act,
69 of 1984, administered by the Re spondent as or on behalf of the liquidator;
and
6.6 The Respondent's practice as a legal practitioner of this Honourable
Court, to the curator appointed in terms of paragraph 5 hereof, provided that,
as far as such accounting records, records, files a nd documents are
concerned, the Respondent shall be entitled to have reasonable access to
them but always subject to the supervision of such Curator or his nominee.
7. Should the Respondent fail to comply with the provisions of the preceding
paragraph of this order on service thereof upon him or after a return by the person
entrusted with the service thereof that he has been unable to effect service thereof
on the Respondent (as the case may be}, the Sheriff for the district in which such
accounting records, records, files and documents are, be empowered and directed to
search for and to take possession thereof wherever they may be and to deliver them
to such Curator.
8. The Curator shall be entitled to :
8.1 Hand over to the persons entitled thereto all such records, files an d
documents provided that a satisfactory written undertaking has been received
from such persons t o pay any amount, either determined on taxation or by
agreement, in respect of fees and disbursements due to the firm;
8.2 Require from the persons referred to in paragraph 8.1 to provide any
such documentation or information which he/she may consider relevant in
respect of a claim or possi ble or anticipated claim, against him/her and/or the
Respondent and/or the Respondent's clients and/or fund in respect of money
and/or other property entrusted to the Respondent provided that any person
entitled thereto shall be granted reasonable access t hereto and shall be
permitted to make copies thereto;
8.3 Publish this order or an abridged version thereof in any newspaper
he/she considers appropriate; and
8.4 Wind-up of the Respondent's practice;
9. The Respondent be and is hereby removed from office as:
9.1 Executor of any estate of which the Re spondent has been appointed in
terms of section 54(1)(a)(v) of the Administration of Estate Act, No. 66 of 1965
or the estate of any other person referred to in section 72(1);
9.2 Curator or guardian of any minor or other person's property in terms of
section 72(1) read with section 54(1)(a)(v) and section 85 of the
Administration of Estate Act, No 66 of 1965;
9.3 Trustee of any insolent estate in terms of section 59 of the Insolvency
Act, No 24 of 1936;
9.4 Liquidator of any co mpany in terms of section 379(2) read with 379(e)
of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 and read together with the provisions of
the Companies Act No 71 of 2008;
9.5 Trustee of any trust in terms of section 20(1) of the Trust Property
Control Act, No 57 of 1988;
9.6 Liquidator or any close corporation appointed in terms of section 74 of
the Close Corporation Act, No 69 of 1984; and
9.7 Administrator appointed in terms of Section 74 of the Magistrates Court
Act, No 32 of 1944.
10. If there are any funds available, the Respondent shall within 6 (six) months
after having been requested to do so by the curator, or within such longer period as
the curator may agree to in writing, satisfy the curator, by means of the submission
of taxed bills of costs or otherwise, of the amount of the fees and disbursements due
to him (Respondent) in respect of his former practice, and should he fail to do so, he
shall not be entitled to recover such fees and disbursements from the curator without
prejudice, however, to such rights (if any) as he may have against the creditor(s)
concerned for payment or recovery thereof.
11. A certificate issued by a director of the Attorney's Fidelity Fund shall constitute
prima facie proof of the curator's costs and that the Registrar be authorised to issue
a write of execution on the strengths of such certif icate in order to collect the
curator’s costs.
12 The Respondent be and is hereby directed:
12.1 To pay, in terms of section 87(2) of Act No 28 of 2014, the reasonable
costs of the inspection of the accounting records of Respondent;
12.2 To pay the reasonable fees of the auditor engaged by the Applicant;
12.3 To pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Curator, including
travelling time;
12.4 To pay the rea sonable fees and expenses of any person(s) consulted
and/or engaged by the Curator as aforesaid;
12.5 To pay the expenses relating to the publication of this order or an
abbreviated version thereof;
12.6 To pay the costs of this application on an attorney-and-client scale.
13. In the event of the Respondent failing to comply with any of the provisions
referred to in this Order, the Applicant shall be entitled to apply through due and
proper civil process commensurate with the principles of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, Act No. 106 of 1996, for the appropriate relief against the
Respondent including but not limited to an Order for the committal of the Respondent
to prison for the Respondent's contempt of the provisions of the abovementioned
paragraphs.
BY ORDER
REGISTRAR, PRETORIA
Appearance for the Applicant: Adv Dawid Smith
Appearance for the Respondent: No appearance