Rösemann v General Council of the Bar of South Africa

The appellant, Eckhard Rösemann, an admitted advocate, accepted instructions from attorneys that required him to conduct litigation from inception to completion in magistrates’ courts, including administrative and preparatory work normally performed by attorneys. He signed summonses and notices of motion as if he were an attorney, furnished his own address for service, and effectively ran matters without attorney involvement beyond the initial brief. This conduct occurred despite an earlier consent order of the Cape High Court prohibiting him from accepting instructions directly from the public or undertaking work normally performed by an attorney without being instructed by an attorney. Complaints by a magistrate and a member of the Cape Bar led the General Council of the Bar to seek disciplinary action. The Cape High Court found him guilty of unprofessional conduct and suspended him from practice for two months. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The finding of unprofessional conduct and the two-month suspension imposed by the Cape High Court were confirmed.

The case reaffirms the divided nature of the South African legal profession and the centrality of the referral rule. It clarifies that advocates may not accept briefs that require them to perform the full spectrum of attorney functions, nor may they sign pleadings or notices in magistrates’ courts. The judgment underscores that both advocates and attorneys may not ‘bend’ professional rules by agreement and confirms that ignorance of established professional norms does not excuse misconduct.