Legal Practice Council v Bulelani Rubushe

The respondent, Mr Bulelani Rubushe, was an attorney practising for his own account. His misconduct arose from a motor vehicle accident claim in which he represented a client, Mr Mfengwana, under a purported contingency fee agreement. The agreement did not comply with the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 and purported to allow the respondent to charge fees grossly disproportionate to the work done. When the settlement was presented to court, Plasket J found the agreement unlawful, disingenuous and overreaching, set it aside, and limited the respondent to taxed attorney-and-client costs. Despite this, the respondent persisted in dishonest conduct: he attempted to justify the unlawful agreement retrospectively, submitted inflated and fraudulent bills of costs, withheld approximately 25% of the settlement from his client in defiance of a court order, received settlement funds without authority after withdrawing as attorney, and only repaid the client after being ordered to do so in separate proceedings. The Legal Practice Council applied to have his name struck from the roll. The High Court found him not fit and proper but ordered a two-year suspension instead. The LPC appealed.

The appeal was upheld with attorney-and-client costs. The High Court’s suspension order was set aside and replaced with an order striking the respondent’s name from the roll of legal practitioners in terms of s 30(3) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014. The remainder of the High Court’s order was confirmed.

The case reaffirms the strict approach of South African courts to dishonesty by legal practitioners. It underscores that where dishonesty is established, striking off is the default sanction unless exceptional circumstances justify suspension. The judgment clarifies that failure to succeed in dishonest conduct does not mitigate its seriousness and reiterates that disciplinary proceedings focus on protection of the public and the profession, not punishment.