LJU4802 Assignment 1 2026 Semester 1 Due 23 March 2026

University of South Africa
College of Law — Department of Procedural Law

⋄——————⋄——————⋄

LJU4802
Legal Ethics and
Professional Conduct
Assignment 1 — Semester 1, 2026
⋄——————⋄——————⋄




Module Code: LJU4802

Module Name: Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct

Assignment: Assignment 1

Semester: Semester 1, 2026

Due Date: 23 March 2026

Institution: University of South Africa (UNISA)

Department: Department of Procedural Law

Referencing: OSCOLA




Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for LJU4802 — UNISA, 2026

,UNISA | LJU4802 Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct



Contents

1 Part A: Legal Practice Council v Naicker (Case No 2788/2019P) 4
1.1 Question 1: Legislation Currently Regulating the Attorney’s Profession . . . . . . 4
1.2 Question 2: Legislation Applied in This Case and Why It Was Applicable . . . . 5
1.3 Question 3: The Applicant and the Order Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.1 3.1 The Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 3.2 The Order Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Question 4: Why an Attorney Must Have a Fidelity Fund Certificate and Practise
with a Trust Banking Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.1 The Fidelity Fund Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 The Trust Banking Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Question 5: Why the Court Found That Mr Naicker Misappropriated Trust Funds 8
1.6 Question 6: The Nature of the Attorney’s Profession and Ethical Demands on Its
Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6.1 The Nature of the Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6.2 Ethical Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.7 Question 7: The Three-Stage Enquiry Applied by the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7.1 Stage One: Was the Conduct Proved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7.2 Stage Two: Is the Person Fit and Proper? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7.3 Stage Three: What Is the Appropriate Sanction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8 Question 8: Sanction Imposed and the Court’s Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.8.1 8.1 The Sanction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.8.2 8.2 The Court’s Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2 Part B: The Three-Stage Enquiry and Fitness to Practise 14
2.1 The Three-Stage Enquiry: With Reference to Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.1 Stage One: Has the Misconduct Been Proved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.2 Stage Two: Does the Conduct Render the Person Unfit to Practise? . . . 15
2.1.3 Stage Three: What Is the Appropriate Sanction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 “Membership of the Legal Profession is Subject to Extensive Character Screening” 17
2.2.1 Legislative Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.2 Judicial Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17



Semester 1, 2026 Page 2 of 25 Due: 23 March 2026

, UNISA | LJU4802 Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct


2.3 “The Respondent Shall Be Liable for the Costs on the Scale as Between Attorney
and Client” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.1 Meaning of the Costs Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.2 Factors Justifying Such an Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Factors for Calculating a Reasonable Fee: The Code of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 Part C: The Spies Case and Readmission Principles 20
3.1 The Applicant in the Spies Case and the Purpose of That Body . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.1 The Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.2 Purpose of the LPC with Reference to Applicable Legislation . . . . . . . 21
3.2 The Sanction Imposed in the Spies Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Factors for Readmission: Lize Maartens v South African Legal Practice Council (Case
19239/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3.1 The Readmission Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3.2 Factors the Court Will Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table of Authorities 25




Semester 1, 2026 Page 3 of 25 Due: 23 March 2026