The Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Pule Abram Morobadi

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces applied under s 22(1)(d) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979 for the removal of attorney Pule Abram Morobadi from the roll. The application arose from multiple complaints and an inspection of his firm. In administering a deceased estate, Morobadi entered into a contingency fee agreement, charged fees allegedly exceeding the statutory tariff, transferred estate funds to his business account without authority, and admitted to taking an unauthorised ‘loan’ of R48 000 from the estate. Further irregularities were identified in a Road Accident Fund matter involving contingency fees, retention of party-and-party costs, and an additional payment allegedly made as a gratuity by the client. Separately, the Gauteng Department of Human Settlements alleged fraudulent invoicing and refusal by Morobadi to cooperate with an investigation, though these allegations were not proven on affidavit. The High Court found some misconduct established but dismissed the application, holding it insufficient to justify suspension or striking off. The Law Society appealed.

The appeal was upheld in part. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order suspending the respondent from practising as an attorney on an interim basis pending a disciplinary enquiry to be instituted and finalised within three months. The application for striking off was postponed, further ancillary relief was incorporated, and no order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the disciplinary role of courts under s 22(1)(d) of the Attorneys Act and emphasises that courts act as custos morum of the profession. It confirms that the Law Society is not required to exhaust internal disciplinary procedures before approaching court and underscores the importance of interim suspension as a protective measure where serious allegations of misconduct exist, even if not all have been finally proven.