Hutchinson Wild v Legal Practice Council and Others

Ms Jennifer Emily Hutchinson Wild, a practising advocate and member of the Bisho Society of Advocates, faced a striking-off application instituted in 2017 by the Eastern Cape Society of Advocates under the repealed Admission of Advocates Act 74 of 1964 and the common law. While that application was pending, the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 came into force on 1 November 2018, establishing the Legal Practice Council (LPC) as the statutory regulator. In April 2019, the LPC issued an advisory note setting out transitional arrangements for pending disciplinary proceedings against advocates, indicating that pre‑LPA striking-off applications would be completed by the relevant advocates’ societies, subject to LPC accreditation and oversight. Ms Wild applied to the Gauteng Division of the High Court to review and set aside the LPC’s decision to issue the advisory note, contending that under s 116(2) of the LPA only the LPC could continue the striking-off proceedings. The full court dismissed her application, and she appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the limits of administrative-law review under PAJA in relation to regulatory guidance issued by the Legal Practice Council. It provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of s 116(2) of the Legal Practice Act and confirms that the LPA did not abolish the common-law standing of advocates’ societies to institute and continue disciplinary proceedings. The judgment affirms the continuing role of advocates’ societies and the inherent disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court alongside the LPC’s primary regulatory role.