The Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Mahon

Ms Rochelle Mahon worked for a firm of attorneys from 3 January 2006 under an employment contract described as a ‘Candidate Trademark Attorney’ agreement. This agreement included a probationary period and expressly contemplated that formal articles of clerkship would only be concluded later. After she completed outstanding academic requirements, a valid clerkship agreement was signed on 28 May 2006 and duly registered with the Law Society. When she later applied for admission as an attorney, she was three months short of the two-year clerkship period required by s 2(1)(a) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979. She applied to the High Court for condonation under s 13(2) of the Act, arguing that the period worked before the signing of her articles constituted ‘irregular service’ capable of condonation. The High Court granted condonation and admitted her as an attorney. The Law Society appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court order admitting and enrolling Ms Mahon as an attorney was set aside. Her application for condonation of the period served before the conclusion of her articles was dismissed. Her admission application was postponed sine die, with directions that she could reapply after completing a further three months of articles or community service as prescribed by the Attorneys Act.

The case authoritatively confirms that s 13(2) of the Attorneys Act allows condonation only where irregularity occurs within the framework of a valid articles of clerkship agreement. It reinforces the centrality of a valid clerkship contract in the regulation of admission to the attorneys’ profession and clarifies that fairness and justice are not independent constitutional yardsticks to invalidate or bypass clear statutory requirements. The judgment also affirms that lower courts remain bound by pre-constitutional interpretations of statutes by the SCA unless the statute is ambiguous or constitutionally invalid.