Particulars of Disciplinary Hearings

A M Wentzel Wentzel (A.M) Prokureurs

REF:50242020 RAF -COMPLAINT -PRACTITIONER CHARGED WITH ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR MONEY AND FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

THE IC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.

H-J Moolman Moolman & Pienaar Inc. Attorneys

REF:13272017 Conflict of interest

Dismissed as withdrawn by complainant

B P Mogau Mogau Attorneys

REF:38512017 Contravention of Code 18.14 in that the practitioner failed to perform work of a kind commonly performed by an attorney with a degree of skill, care or attention or quality or standard reasonably expected of an attorney, in the matter of Ms Senosi in the instructions to assist with the setlement agreement and the vary of a court order

Guilty
R8 000 fine, R4 000 suspended for 3 years on condition he is not found guilty of any offence

M J A Van Zyl Van Zyl Attorneys

REF:60072018 Failuree to use their best effort to carry out work in a competant and timely manner and not take on work that they do not reasonably believe they will be able to carry out and to perform work with a degree of skill, care or attention or quality or standard expected of a practitioner, in the way they dealt with the claim of Ms Assegai to try and recover the deposit paid in aproperty sale subsequently cancelled.

Fine R5000

J S Mokotedi VAN VELDEN-DUFFEY

REF:62392018 Code 3.11

M Z Benade Benade (Gielie) Attorneys

REF:35172019 CIVIL MATTER -APPLICATION FOR RESCISSION OF A DEBT REVIEW -ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PRACTITIONER FAILED TO ATTEND TO THE MATTER DILIGENTLY.

IC COMMTTEE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON 20 JULY 2021,ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.

J J Pienaar Van Der Merwe Attorneys, Hannatjie

REF:46872019 ADMINISTRATION MATTER OF 2014-ALLEGATION ARE THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS CANCELLING THE ADMIN, DESPITE PAYMENT AND THE BALANCE DOES NOT STOP.

COMMITTEE ON THE 30 JULY 2021,DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.

D M Pooe Malatji, Mohosh & Pooe Attorneys

REF:40112019 IN A DECEASED ESTATE MATTER,ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR MONEY AND FAILURE TO RESPOND TO COMMUNICATIONS

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 30 JULY 2026 ,DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.

J J Pienaar Van Der Merwe Attorneys, Hannatjie

REF:48562019 CIVIL ADMINISTRATION-ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PRACTITIONER ,OVER REACHING AND OVERCHARGING THE COMPLIANANT.

ON THE 30 JULY 2021,IC COMMITTEE HELD THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.

R J Coetzee Coetzee (Robert) Prokureurs

REF:27702019 ARBITRATION MATTER-THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT THE PRACTITIONER FAILED TO ASSIST HIM AND OR REPRESENT IN THE ARBITRATION-PRACTITIONER CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO ATTEND TO MATTER DILIGENTLY.

THE IC COMMITTEE ON THE 30 JULY 2021,DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.

J J Pienaar Van Der Merwe (Hannatjie) Attorneys

REF:4142017 ON ALLEGATION THAT THE DEDUCTION WERE NOT PROPERLY DEDUCTED BY THE PRACTITIONER AND THAT THE PRACTITIONER OVER REACHED & OVERCHARGED THE COMPLAINANT.

THE PRACTITIONER WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AS HE HAD GIVEN A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION.

K B Semaushu Semaushu Attorneys

REF:2752020 ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PRACTITIONER FAILED TO HOUNOUR AN UNDERTAKING AND FAILURE TO ACT IN THE BEAST INTEREST OF THE CLIENT.CIVIL A MATTER INVOLVING BUSINESS MATTER.

IC ON THE 30 JULY 2021 RECOMMENDED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERED FOR DISCUSSION

J J Pienaar Van Der Merwe Attorneys, Hannatjie

REF:46842019 EAO MATTER-COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT HE NEVER APPLIED FOR NEVER APPLIED FOR EAO.

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 30 JULY 2021,DISMISSED THE COMPLAINANT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION AND SUPPLIED DOCUMENTS TO THAT AFFECT THAT THE COMPLAINANT IN DEED APPLIED FOR THE EAO.

H G Aucamp Aucamp (H.G) Attorney

REF:58792020 DECEASED ESTATE MATTER-PRACTITIONER CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO ACCOUNT/FAULURE TO ATTEND MATTER DILIGENTLY.

IC RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED -THE PRACTITIONER HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION.NO PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS.

A M Wentzel Wentzel (A.M) Prokureurs

REF:52702019 RAF -CIVIL MATTER-ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PRACTITONER FAILED TO ACCOUNT TO COMPLAINANT IN REGARD TO THE MONEY PAID BY RAF.

IC COMMITTEE ON THE 20 JULY 2021,DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND HAS GIVEN A REASOBLE EXPLANATION.

P L Badenhorst Bosman & Bosman Attorneys

REF:56952020 CIVIL- GARNISHEE -ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PRACTITIONER OVER CHARGED AND OVERREACHED THE COMPAINANT

The Ic Committee on the 30 July 2021,dismissed the complaint on the basis that the practitioner has given a reasonable explanation and is not guilty of misconduct.

T D P Malatjie Malatjie D. Attorneys

REF:38722021
“You are guilty of misconduct in terms of Clauses 21.1 and 21.2 of the Legal Practice Council’s Code of Conduct and / or Rule 57.1 of the Legal Practice Council Rules in that you breached and / or contravened and / or failed to comply with:
1) Rule 54.24.1 read with Rule 54.20, 54.22 and 54.23 of the Rules, in that you failed and / or neglected to TIMEOUSLY furnish to the Legal Practice Council, Mpumalanga Provincial Office, within six months after the annual closing of your books of account, with a Report in its original format in the form of the Eighth Schedule to the Legal Practice Council’s Rules, by your Auditor or Inspector for the period ending 29 February 2020.

3. That you pleaded Guilty to the below charges.

2) Rule 4.1 of the Rules read with Section 6(4)(c) and Section 95(1)(a) of the Legal Practice Act, in that you failed and / or neglected to pay your annual subscription fee(s) for the year(s) 2020 in an amount of R1725.00 to the Legal Practice Council, Mpumalanga Provincial Office as and when it became due and payable; and

3) Rule 4.1 of the Rules read with Section 6(4)(c) and Section 95(1)(a) of the Legal Practice Act, in that you failed and / or neglected to pay your annual subscription fee(s) for the year(s) 2021 in an amount of R1725.00 to the Legal Practice Council, Mpumalanga Provincial Office as and when it became due and payable; and

4) Section 84(1) and Section 84(2) of the Legal Practice Act read with Rule 47 of the Rules by practising for your own account as a Director / Partner of a Practice / Firm of Attorneys under the name and style of Malatjie D. Attorneys without being in possession of a Fidelity Fund Certificate as from 1 January 2021 to date.”

1, Fined R1 000,00 due and payable within 15 days to the Mpumalanga Provincial Council
2, That you have 30 days to comply with charge 4(four), obtain a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate for the year 2021, failure to comply within or by the 30th day from the date of the imposed sanction, the Mpumalanga Provincial Council must approach the Mpumalanga Provincial High Court for a suspension Application in terms of Rule 40,3 on non-compliance.

K H Baloyi Baloyi (Khotso) Attorneys

REF:80802015 CIVIL MATTER -vehicle disputes on allegations that the Practitioner fraudulently transection without the complainant’s authority ,Practitioner charged with failure to attend to matter diligently /failure to honour undertaking.

The Discussion Committee on the 23 July 2021,th practitioner found not guilty and hasgiven a reasonable explanation.

T A Mmokwa Mmokwa (T.A) Attorneys

REF:33262016 CIVIL MATTER -RESCISSION OF JUDGEMENT APPLICATION-THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE PRACTITIONER FAILED TO ASSIST HIM WITH THE APPLICATION ,DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE PAID THE PRACTITIONER.

The Discussion Committee on the 23 July 2021,dismmssed the complainant on the basis that the practitioner was not guilty and has given a reasonable explanation.

R Jordaan (Swart) Jordaan, Swart Attorneys

REF:60852017 CIVL DEBT COLLECTION MATTER-IN WHICH THE COMPLANANT ALLEGED THAT THE PRACTITIONER OVERCHAGED AND PROCEEDED TO COLLECT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEBT WAS SETTLED IN FULL.

The Discussion committee on the 23 July 2021,Dismissed the complanant on the basis that the practitioner is not guilty of misconduct and has given a resonable explanantion and supporting documenyts to that effect.