PABASA warns LPC against weaponising the institution against Mpofu
PABASA's stern warning to Labour Practice Council: Protecting the integrity of the legal profession
Image: IOL/Independent Newspapers
The Pan-African Bar Association of South Africa (PABASA) issued a stern warning to the Legal Practice Council (LPC), cautioning the regulatory body to resist attempts to weaponise disciplinary proceedings for narrow personal or political agendas.
This comes amid the LPC's recent decision to charge advocate Dali Mpofu SC, one of the country's most prominent legal figures, with bringing the legal profession into disrepute.
In a detailed letter dated April 17, addressed to LPC Chair Advocate Pule Seleka, PABASA's National Executive Committee (NEC) expressed deep concern over what it described as 'spurious charges' aimed at intimidating Mpofu SC and potentially tarnishing his reputation unjustly.
'We find this conduct disturbing. The NEC of PABASA has discussed the charges against Mpofu SC and also requested him to give us his confidence about them, which he has done," it said.
'We reiterate that the LPC is the appropriate regulatory body empowered to ensure legal practitioners comply with the Code of Conduct. Our concern is that these charges, which appear to be frivolous, are being used to intimidate and discredit a senior advocate exercising his professional duties.'
The charges levied against Mpofu include allegations of misconduct ranging from making threatening remarks during a Section 194 inquiry into the former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's fitness to hold office to impugning the character of constitutional figures and engaging in unprofessional conduct during high-profile interviews and court proceedings.
The charges also accuse Mpofu of breaching various provisions of the Code of Conduct, suggesting that his cross-examinations and public statements have tarnished the legal profession's reputation.
'Charging any person can potentially destroy people's lives and careers. We caution against this hatred towards people, regardless of who they are and their views. We would defend any legal practitioner against frivolous charges designed to intimidate them from doing their jobs or representing their clients.'
The association called on the LPC to exercise its discretion carefully, noting that the charges seem to misinterpret and abuse the provisions of the Code of Conduct.
It further warned that such actions risk creating a dangerous precedent where the legal profession could be targeted for political or personal motives rather than legitimate disciplinary reasons.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
26-05-2025
- Eyewitness News
Senzo Meyiwa trial: Witness grilled on glitch in system of LPC's Fidelity Fund
JOHANNESBURG - A glitch in the systems of the legal practitioners' Fidelity Fund took centre stage at the Senzo Meyiwa trial on Monday. The court heard evidence on the credentials of a lawyer who is linked to one of the accused, Bongani Ntanzi. According to the State, Ntanzi was legally represented by a lawyer named Dominic Mjiyako when he signed a confession statement before a magistrate at the Boksburg court in June 2020. On the witness stand on Monday was Khulani Sambo, an officer from the Legal Practice Council (LPC), who confirmed Mjiyako's credentials. Sambo's testimony confirmed that Advocate Dominic Mjiyako was registered as an attorney when he allegedly represented Ntanzi when he wrote and signed a statement confessing to the murder of Senzo Meyiwa. But Sambo also revealed that in 2020, through a complaint, that he became aware of a systems glitch that resulted in Mjiyako sharing a Fidelity Fund certificate number with another lawyer. Sambo said that a unique number was usually issued to each legal practitioner. This is where the defence centred its cross-examination on Monday, with Ntanzi's lawyer Sipho Ramosepele questioning Sambo on this glitch. "Have you ever heard of where practitioners collude with certain staff members from the LPC and those practitioners obtain FFC fraudulently?" Ramosepele asked. Sambo: "Not to my knowledge, no." While Ramosepele and his colleague, Advocate Charles Mnisi, questioned Sambo on instances of alleged corruption and fraud at the Legal Practice Council, none of them were linked to Mjiyako.
IOL News
19-05-2025
- IOL News
Judge Siraj Desai to monitor legal proceedings in high-profile LPC case against attorney Kaamilah Paulse
Attorney Kaamilah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Image: Supplied Respected Ombudsman and retired judge Siraj Desai has confirmed that he will be closely monitoring the disciplinary proceedings involving Cape Town attorney Kaamilah Paulse, who faces serious allegations of professional misconduct. Desai currently serves as South Africa's Legal Services Ombud, a position he has held since December 2020. Desai's comments follow a landmark ruling by the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC), which found prima facie evidence of misconduct after a complaint by Johannesburg-based father Asif Casoojee. 'This matter came to our offices after the complainant was turned down by the LPC. He followed the appeal process. I'm pleased to hear that the appeal process is functioning optimally,' said Judge Desai. 'We receive many complaints about attorneys in matrimonial cases, complaints about irregularity or undue influence. We will follow the matter with great interest. It is a sensitive matter. Because of the nature of the complaint, the matter must be fully and properly investigated in the fora of the LPC.' Casoojee has been entangled in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Paulse, a senior attorney at Herold Gie Attorneys, represents Cassojee's ex-wife. Casoojee's complaint includes allegations of unethical conduct, dishonest legal tactics, and interference in both his personal and professional life. In its ruling dated 13 March 2025, the LPC Appeals Tribunal upheld Casoojee's appeal on two key charges. The first charge pertains to a protection order obtained by Paulse. The Tribunal found that the interim order, which preceded the final protection order, had not been properly served—SAPS reportedly failed to deliver it, and no return date was issued. The final order was granted in Casoojee's absence, raising questions about due process. The second and more serious charge involves Paulse's alleged interference in Casoojee's relationship with his children. The Tribunal found that Paulse had played a role in restricting his access to their school records, communication, and general contact. It ruled that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation.' Additional concerns included her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial documents and participation in a private WhatsApp group that shared confidential information about Casoojee's business. Tribunal Chair Advocate Sonja Lötter criticised Paulse for failing to address these allegations. 'This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the Tribunal said. It also noted that since 2021, during protracted legal proceedings, the best interests of the children were not prioritised. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ The LPC reaffirmed the duty of all attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the child's best interests, as outlined in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. The Tribunal cited Judge Peter Mabuse, who has warned that legal tools should not be used 'as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party.' The ruling has triggered renewed scrutiny of South Africa's family law system. Although the law theoretically grants both parents equal rights, many fathers argue that the system operates with an unconscious bias. 'There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,' said family law expert Advocate Lesedi Mokoena. 'But that is not the law, and it's not always in the best interests of the child.' Casoojee, who is now applying to the High Court to have Paulse removed from the custody case due to a conflict of interest, insists his efforts are not just about his rights. 'This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.' On Thursday, Herold Gie Attorneys issued a letter to The Star, urging the paper not to publish the story. 'We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee. ''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse,' the letter stated. The firm confirmed Paulse intends to challenge the allegations. The matter now proceeds to the LPC's Disciplinary Committee and may return to the High Court, where the future of Casoojee's relationship with his children could finally be resolved — under close watch from the Ombudsman himself. The misconduct case against Paulse is gaining national traction, as several fathers' rights groups and civil society organisations prepare to back Casoojee in his long legal battle.
The Star
17-05-2025
- The Star
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kaamilah Paulse
In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kaamilah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Paulse represents his spouse. Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoojee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoojee 's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoojee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoojee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. ''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021. The LPC reaffirmed the duty of attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. 'Attorneys should not approach each case as if it were a war between litigants,' the tribunal stated, citing Judge Peter Mabuse, who warned that court rules must not be used 'as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party'. The case underscores broader systemic issues. Although South African law grants both parents equal rights and responsibilities, many fathers report feeling marginalised in the family law system. 'There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,' says family law expert Adv Lesedi Mokoena. 'But that is not the law, and it's not always what's in the best interests of the child.' Casoojee , who is currently applying to the High Court to compel Paulse's removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, asserts that his fight is about more than personal justice. 'This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.' On Thursday, Herold Gie Attorneys wrote to The Star , demanding that the paper not publish the story. In the letter, the law firm said: 'We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee. ''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse. 'Ms Paulse will, when the matter is heard by the Disciplinary Committee, be challenging the complaint,' the letter reads. The matter is now expected to head back to the High Court, where the future of his relationship with his children may finally be resolved.
