EXPLAINER | Legal council details readmission steps for disbarred lawyers

Disbarred advocate Malesela Teffo’s surprise appearance at the high court in Johannesburg on Monday raised numerous questions about what being struck from the roll means and processes involved for disgraced practitioners to be readmitted by the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

Teffo appeared before judge Cassim Moosa as a friend of the court, saying he was acting “in the interest of justice” for all the accused in the dock, including Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala.

But Teffo’s appearance was challenged by the defence, which questioned his current standing after the LPC confirmed earlier this year that he remained struck from the roll despite his acquittal on criminal charges.

LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said being struck from the roll means the legal practitioner is no longer legally entitled to practise or give legal advice.

“They may not represent clients, provide legal services reserved for legal practitioners, or charge fees for such services. A person who has been struck from the roll is no longer entitled to practise or hold themselves out as an advocate,” he said.

Letebele said this would amount to misrepresentation of their status.

Though Teffo claimed he was in good standing with the LPC, Letebele said this was not accurate.

“Good standing alone is therefore insufficient and, in the case of a struck-off practitioner, cannot exist until readmission has taken place. A practitioner who has been struck from the roll cannot be regarded as being in good standing,” Letebele said.

He said being struck from the roll does not mean a practitioner can simply approach the LPC and resume practising.

“A practitioner who has been struck from the roll and wishes to return to practice must apply to the high court for readmission,” he said.

“The application must be served on the LPC, which is afforded an opportunity to support or oppose the application.”

The LPC would then consider the matter, with the relevant provincial council making recommendations to the national council.

“The reasons for the practitioner having been struck from the roll. Whether the practitioner has demonstrated genuine rehabilitation and whether there is any risk of similar misconduct being repeated,” he said.

Letebele added that the practitioner’s conduct since being struck off would also be examined.

This would include evidence of remorse, accountability and a commitment to ethical conduct.

“Whether the LPC is satisfied that the applicant is again a fit and proper person to practise as a legal practitioner. Ultimately, the decision rests with the high court,” Letebele said.

He also confirmed that the warrant of arrest issued against Teffo stems from contempt proceedings.

“The LPC recently approached the court in relation to Mr Teffo’s conduct, alleging contempt of a court order. Contempt of court is a serious matter and may arise where a person is alleged to have wilfully disobeyed, undermined or shown disregard for a court order, thereby affecting the authority and administration of justice,” Letebele said.

He explained that the issuing of a warrant does not in itself amount to a guilt finding.

“The issuing of a warrant means that the court has authorised law enforcement authorities to arrest the individual in accordance with the applicable legal process.

“The allegations remain subject to judicial determination, and it is for the court to decide whether contempt has been established and, if so, what consequences should follow,“ he said.