Legal Practice Council v Steffen

The respondent, Hanno Erasmus Steffen, was an admitted attorney and director of H Steffen Inc, practicing in Brackenfell and Stellenbosch. On 25 March 2022, he was suspended from practice by the High Court pending an investigation into complaints received by the Legal Practice Council (LPC). He was subsequently charged with misappropriating R3,998,860 in trust funds from the Fijnbosch Farm Trust during March 2021. He pleaded guilty. Further investigation revealed that between October 2020 and April 2022, he misappropriated an additional R3.335 million from eight other victims, including two thefts after his suspension. The funds were from proceeds of property sales where he acted as conveyancer, including transfer fees and duties. In one instance, he and an estate agent purchased a property for R300,000 through the 'Prosper' Trust (of which he was a trustee and beneficiary) without paying the sellers, then resold it days later for R600,000. In the Fijnbosch Farm Trust matter, he also pocketed R521,731 in VAT meant for SARS. His victims included young couples and retired pensioners.

• Whether the respondent's misconduct was established on a balance of probabilities
• Whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to continue practising as a legal practitioner
• Whether the misconduct warrants striking from the roll or whether suspension from practice would suffice

The respondent's name was struck from the roll of legal practitioners in terms of s 40(3)(a)(iv)(aa) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, and he was ordered to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client.

Where a legal practitioner has misappropriated trust funds over an extended period, demonstrated a complete absence of integrity and honesty, shown no remorse, and continued offending even after suspension, the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to practise and must be struck from the roll to protect the public.

The court expressed the hope that the respondent would still be prosecuted for the criminal offences he committed. It also noted that since the earlier suspension order already placed the firm under curatorship and required delivery of the respondent's admission certificate to the Registrar, no such provision needed to be included in the current order.

This case underscores the principle that absolute personal integrity and scrupulous honesty are fundamental attributes required of legal practitioners as the bedrock of public trust. It confirms the three-stage enquiry for striking-off applications (established in Jasat v Natal Law Society and Summerley v Law Society of the Northern Provinces) and illustrates that misappropriation of trust funds, particularly when systematic and remorseless, will attract the ultimate sanction of striking from the roll.