The Law Society of Zimbabwe v Kudzai Mukanhairi

The respondent was registered to practice law in 2011 and previously worked as a professional assistant at Linda Chipato Legal Practitioners. In February 2015, the respondent contacted representatives of Foly Cornishe (Pvt) Ltd, a client of Linda Chipato Legal Practitioners, regarding property litigation matters. She cautioned the client against disclosing this communication to Ms Chipato. The respondent provided unsolicited legal advice proposing a scheme to reverse land acquisition by backdating agreements and making misrepresentations to the Minister of Lands about ownership. She also sent correspondence containing intemperate and unmeasured language about Ms Chipato, calling her a liar and suggesting she was unprofessional or incompetent. The respondent was aware the complainant was represented by Linda Chipato, as she had previously noted judgment and prepared court applications on behalf of the complainant while employed at that firm. The complaint was brought by Foly Cornishe (Pvt) Ltd itself. The respondent failed to attend the disciplinary hearing on 18 January 2019.

• Whether the respondent's conduct in bypassing a fellow legal practitioner and communicating surreptitiously with that practitioner's client constituted unprofessional conduct
• Whether the respondent's proposal to defeat provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by backdating agreements constituted a breach of the duty to uphold the law
• Whether the respondent's use of intemperate language towards a fellow legal practitioner constituted unprofessional conduct
• What is the appropriate sanction for such misconduct

1. The respondent's name be deleted from the register of legal practitioners, notaries and conveyancers. 2. Respondent shall pay the expenses incurred by the applicant in connection with the proceedings.

A legal practitioner commits unprofessional, dishonourable and unworthy conduct when: (1) bypassing a fellow legal practitioner and surreptitiously communicating with that practitioner's client, particularly when the practitioner is aware of the impropriety; (2) conspiring to defeat statutory provisions such as the Land Acquisition Act, thereby breaching the common law duty to uphold the law and attempting to defeat the course of justice; and (3) using intemperate and discourteous language towards a fellow legal practitioner. Such gross misconduct warrants deregistration where it demonstrates that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to continue practising law, particularly where the conduct violates the fundamental oath to observe the laws of Zimbabwe. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal does not have power under s 28(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act to impose costs de bonis propiis as a penalty for misconduct.

The Tribunal observed that if the respondent had reason to believe that Ms Chipato was unprofessional, the proper course would have been to report the matter to the Law Society rather than making direct accusations in correspondence. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent's failure to attend the disciplinary hearing on 18 January 2019 reflected badly on her attitude towards the proceedings. The Tribunal commented that the respondent's claim that she acted out of good intentions and emotional attachment to the client showed a deficit on probity. While the Tribunal acknowledged submissions regarding delay in finalizing the matter, it observed that such delay is not sufficiently mitigatory to prevent deregistration in cases of gross misconduct.

This case establishes important principles regarding professional ethics for legal practitioners in Zimbabwe. It reinforces that legal practitioners have a fundamental duty to uphold the law and not to undermine it, as embodied in the oath of loyalty taken under s 86 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The case demonstrates that deregistration is an appropriate sanction for gross misconduct involving: (1) bypassing fellow legal practitioners and communicating surreptitiously with their clients; (2) conspiring to defeat statutory provisions through fraudulent schemes; and (3) using intemperate language towards fellow legal practitioners. The case also confirms that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal does not have power under s 28(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act to impose costs as a penalty for misconduct, as this is a disciplinary matter not a costs matter. The decision emphasizes that the integrity and reputation of the legal profession must be maintained and that practitioners who violate their fundamental obligations are not fit and proper persons to continue practising law.