15-05-2025
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kamillah Paulse
Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children.
Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children.
In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoogee, against attorney Kamillah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys.
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.
Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children, accused Paulse of unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs.
In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoogee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal.
Casoogee'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 Casoogee and his children. The Tribunal 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 Casoogee'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.'Casoogee, who is now applying to the High Court to compel Paulse's removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, says 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.'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.
