UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law — Department of Jurisprudence
⋄
Professional Ethics
Assignment 01 — 2026
⋄
Module Code: LJU4802
Module Name: Professional Ethics
Assignment No.: Assignment 01
Semester: 2 2026
Due: 28 August 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Professional Ethics (LJU4802)
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | LJU4802 Professional Ethics — Assignment 01
Question 1: The Three-Stage Enquiry into Fitness to Practise
An attorney is an officer of the court, and the court retains an inherent power to determine
who may remain on the roll of attorneys.1 Section 22(1)(d) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979
empowered a court to strike an attorney off the roll where that attorney, in the discretion
of the court, was not a fit and proper person to continue to practise.2 In Jasat v Natal Law
Society,3 the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that this enquiry, although the wording of the
section suggests a single question, in truth unfolds over three distinct stages, each calling for
a different kind of judicial reasoning.
1.1 The First Stage: A Factual Enquiry
The court must first decide whether the conduct alleged against the attorney has actually
been established, and it does so on a preponderance of probabilities, the ordinary civil stan-
dard of proof.4 This stage asks a plain factual question: did the attorney do what is alleged,
on the facts and evidence before the court. No discretion is exercised here. The court is not
yet weighing the conduct against professional standards or deciding on an outcome; it is
simply making a finding of fact, in the same way a trial court decides any disputed factual
issue.5 If the alleged misconduct is not proved on this standard, the enquiry ends there and
the attorney remains on the roll.
1.2 The Second Stage: A Value Judgement
Once the offending conduct has been established, the court moves to a different kind of
question. It must decide, in its discretion, whether the attorney is not a fit and proper person
to continue to practise.6 This is not a factual finding but a value judgement: the court weighs
the proven conduct against the standard of conduct expected of an attorney, an officer of
the court who must be honest, reliable, and trustworthy in dealings with clients, colleagues,
and the court itself. Dishonesty, misappropriation of trust funds, or conduct that reveals a
disregard for the fiduciary character of the profession will ordinarily weigh heavily against
1
Professional Ethics (LJU4802) Learning Units (Department of Jurisprudence, Unisa, 2026), Learning Unit 3,
Heading 3: The Attorney as Officer of the Court.
2
Attorneys Act 53 of 1979, s 22(1)(d).
3
Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA).
4
LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 4: The Fit and Proper Test.
5
Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA) para 10.
6
LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 4: The Fit and Proper Test.
Page 1 of 7
College of Law — Department of Jurisprudence
⋄
Professional Ethics
Assignment 01 — 2026
⋄
Module Code: LJU4802
Module Name: Professional Ethics
Assignment No.: Assignment 01
Semester: 2 2026
Due: 28 August 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Professional Ethics (LJU4802)
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | LJU4802 Professional Ethics — Assignment 01
Question 1: The Three-Stage Enquiry into Fitness to Practise
An attorney is an officer of the court, and the court retains an inherent power to determine
who may remain on the roll of attorneys.1 Section 22(1)(d) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979
empowered a court to strike an attorney off the roll where that attorney, in the discretion
of the court, was not a fit and proper person to continue to practise.2 In Jasat v Natal Law
Society,3 the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that this enquiry, although the wording of the
section suggests a single question, in truth unfolds over three distinct stages, each calling for
a different kind of judicial reasoning.
1.1 The First Stage: A Factual Enquiry
The court must first decide whether the conduct alleged against the attorney has actually
been established, and it does so on a preponderance of probabilities, the ordinary civil stan-
dard of proof.4 This stage asks a plain factual question: did the attorney do what is alleged,
on the facts and evidence before the court. No discretion is exercised here. The court is not
yet weighing the conduct against professional standards or deciding on an outcome; it is
simply making a finding of fact, in the same way a trial court decides any disputed factual
issue.5 If the alleged misconduct is not proved on this standard, the enquiry ends there and
the attorney remains on the roll.
1.2 The Second Stage: A Value Judgement
Once the offending conduct has been established, the court moves to a different kind of
question. It must decide, in its discretion, whether the attorney is not a fit and proper person
to continue to practise.6 This is not a factual finding but a value judgement: the court weighs
the proven conduct against the standard of conduct expected of an attorney, an officer of
the court who must be honest, reliable, and trustworthy in dealings with clients, colleagues,
and the court itself. Dishonesty, misappropriation of trust funds, or conduct that reveals a
disregard for the fiduciary character of the profession will ordinarily weigh heavily against
1
Professional Ethics (LJU4802) Learning Units (Department of Jurisprudence, Unisa, 2026), Learning Unit 3,
Heading 3: The Attorney as Officer of the Court.
2
Attorneys Act 53 of 1979, s 22(1)(d).
3
Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA).
4
LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 4: The Fit and Proper Test.
5
Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA) para 10.
6
LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 4: The Fit and Proper Test.
Page 1 of 7
