Maree & Bernard Attorneys and Another v The South African Legal Practice Council and Another

Mr Nicolas Petrus Maree was the sole director of Maree & Bernard Attorneys Incorporated, a firm of attorneys that also conducted a separate investment practice. Auditors identified certain bank accounts linked to the investment practice, which were labelled by the bank as 'trust accounts', and reported them as unaudited trust accounts. The Legal Practice Council (LPC) took the view that these accounts constituted trust investment accounts under the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 and therefore required auditing in terms of s 85 as a prerequisite for the issuing of a Fidelity Fund Certificate. Mr Maree contended that the accounts related solely to an investment practice regulated by Rule 55 of the LPC Rules, were distinct from the firm’s trust account, and were not subject to trust audit requirements. The High Court held against Mr Maree, finding that the accounts were trust accounts requiring audit, declared him not fit and proper to practise, and suspended him from practice. Mr Maree and his firm appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that the disputed ABSA and FNB investment accounts were not trust accounts requiring compliance with s 85 of the Legal Practice Act, directing the LPC to issue a Fidelity Fund Certificate to the appellants for the period ending December 2020, dismissing the LPC’s counter-application, and making no order as to costs.

The judgment clarifies the legal distinction between trust accounts under the Legal Practice Act and investment practice accounts regulated by Rule 55 of the LPC Rules. It limits the LPC’s power to insist on trust audits and to withhold Fidelity Fund Certificates where no statutory basis exists. The case also reinforces procedural fairness in disciplinary matters and underscores that findings of unfitness to practise must be properly pleaded and justified.