South African Legal Practice Council v Zoleka Susan Ponoane

The respondent, an attorney, represented plaintiffs in civil claims against the Minister of Police in the Regional Magistrate’s Court, Sterkspruit, in 2012. After reserving judgment, the magistrate provided his written judgment to the respondent. Following discussions about the format of the judgment, the respondent rewrote the magistrate’s judgment, which the magistrate then signed and issued as his own. The rewritten judgment went beyond formatting changes and materially altered the order, including amounts awarded and the inclusion of a costs order not made by the magistrate. The respondent later attempted to enforce the judgment. The Minister successfully reviewed and set aside the judgment in earlier proceedings, with the court describing the conduct as unlawful and unprecedented, and referred the respondent’s conduct to the Legal Practice Council. After a disciplinary inquiry found her guilty of misconduct, the Council applied to have her struck from the roll of attorneys.

The respondent’s name was ordered to be struck from the roll of attorneys, with ancillary relief including an order for costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

The case underscores the fundamental ethical obligations of attorneys as officers of the court, particularly the prohibition against any interference with judicial decision-making. It affirms that serious dishonesty and lack of integrity, especially where coupled with denial of wrongdoing, will ordinarily justify striking an attorney from the roll. The judgment also reinforces that disciplinary proceedings are aimed at protecting the public and the administration of justice rather than punishing practitioners.