Hewetson v The Law Society of the Free State

The appellant, Yolandi Hewetson, practised as an attorney with her husband as co-directors of an incorporated law firm in the Free State. Over several years the firm failed to maintain proper accounting records and substantial trust funds were misappropriated, primarily by her husband. Although the appellant contended that her husband controlled the firm’s finances to her exclusion and that she only became aware of the trust deficits late in 2015, evidence suggested she may have known earlier. After she reported the matter to the Law Society in January 2016, an investigation revealed large trust deficits and serious accounting irregularities. The High Court struck both spouses from the roll of attorneys. Only the appellant appealed, conceding she was not fit and proper but challenging the sanction of striking off rather than suspension.

The appeal was upheld in part. The order striking the appellant from the roll was set aside insofar as it applied to her. The earlier interim order was reinstated. The application to strike her from the roll was referred back to the Free State High Court for determination after hearing oral evidence. Pending that outcome, the appellant was suspended from practising as an attorney and ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

The case clarifies the approach appellate courts take when a lower court materially misdirects itself in attorney disciplinary matters. It underscores the seriousness of striking a practitioner from the roll, the importance of factual accuracy when assessing dishonesty, and affirms that unresolved disputes of fact concerning knowledge and complicity may require oral evidence before a final sanction is imposed.