LJU4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 28 AUGUST 2026
Question 1 Consider the following statement by the court and answer the question that
follows: "In light of these acts of misconduct thus established the question to be
considered is.
With reference to Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA), describe the
three-stage enquiry that a court applies to determine whether a person is fit and
proper to practise as an attorney
Question 1: The Three-Stage Enquiry from Jasat v Natal Law Society
In Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley, the court posed the critical question:
"whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney of this
court."¹ The court, in cases such as this, applies a three-stage enquiry as established in
Jasat v Natal Law Society to determine if a legal practitioner is fit and proper to continue
practising.²
The three stages are
Factual Enquiry: The first stage is a factual enquiry to establish whether the alleged
conduct of misconduct has been proven on a balance of probabilities. In the Letsela
case, this stage was satisfied by the proven facts that the respondent failed to submit an
audit report, practiced without a Fidelity Fund Certificate, and likely had unpaid
membership fees.³
¹ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 (Case number: 2756/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 97 (7
October 2021) para 4.
² Professional Ethics (LJU4802) Learning Units (Department of Jurisprudence, Unisa, 2026), Learning
Unit 3, Heading 5: The removal of lawyers who are not fit and proper.
³ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 para 2-3.
, As stated in Jasat, the court must first decide "whether the alleged offending conduct
has been established on a preponderance of probabilities."⁴
Discretionary Judgment: The second stage is a discretionary judgment by the court.
Based on the factual findings, the court must determine whether the person concerned
is, in its discretion, not a fit and proper person to continue to practise. This is a value
judgment based on the court's sense of appropriateness, considering the nature and
seriousness of the proven misconduct.⁵ The court in Letsela found that the respondent's
"cursory attitude" and failure to comply with fundamental professional duties indicated
"deep rooted problems of compliance which pose a threat to the public and the
profession," leading it to conclude he was not fit and proper.⁶ As outlined in Jasat, the
second inquiry is whether "the person concerned 'in the discretion of the Court' is not a
fit and proper person to continue to practise."⁷
Appropriate Sanction: The third stage is a further exercise of discretion to decide on the
appropriate sanction. If the court finds that the person is not a fit and proper person, it
must then decide, in all the circumstances of the case, whether to remove the person's
name from the roll of attorneys or whether a suspension from practice for a specified
period would be a sufficient and appropriate order.⁸ The court in Letsela deemed the
respondent's failure to account, coupled with his poor attitude, sufficient grounds for
suspension.⁹ The Jasat case confirms this third inquiry, stating it involves deciding
whether "in all the circumstances the person in question is to be removed from the roll
of attorneys or whether an order suspending him from practice for a specified period will
suffice."¹⁰
⁴ Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA) para 10.
⁵ LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 5: The removal of lawyers who are not fit and proper.
⁶ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 para 5.
⁷ Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 para 10.
⁸ LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 5: The removal of lawyers who are not fit and proper.
⁹ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 para 5.
¹⁰ Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 para 10.
DUE 28 AUGUST 2026
Question 1 Consider the following statement by the court and answer the question that
follows: "In light of these acts of misconduct thus established the question to be
considered is.
With reference to Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA), describe the
three-stage enquiry that a court applies to determine whether a person is fit and
proper to practise as an attorney
Question 1: The Three-Stage Enquiry from Jasat v Natal Law Society
In Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley, the court posed the critical question:
"whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney of this
court."¹ The court, in cases such as this, applies a three-stage enquiry as established in
Jasat v Natal Law Society to determine if a legal practitioner is fit and proper to continue
practising.²
The three stages are
Factual Enquiry: The first stage is a factual enquiry to establish whether the alleged
conduct of misconduct has been proven on a balance of probabilities. In the Letsela
case, this stage was satisfied by the proven facts that the respondent failed to submit an
audit report, practiced without a Fidelity Fund Certificate, and likely had unpaid
membership fees.³
¹ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 (Case number: 2756/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 97 (7
October 2021) para 4.
² Professional Ethics (LJU4802) Learning Units (Department of Jurisprudence, Unisa, 2026), Learning
Unit 3, Heading 5: The removal of lawyers who are not fit and proper.
³ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 para 2-3.
, As stated in Jasat, the court must first decide "whether the alleged offending conduct
has been established on a preponderance of probabilities."⁴
Discretionary Judgment: The second stage is a discretionary judgment by the court.
Based on the factual findings, the court must determine whether the person concerned
is, in its discretion, not a fit and proper person to continue to practise. This is a value
judgment based on the court's sense of appropriateness, considering the nature and
seriousness of the proven misconduct.⁵ The court in Letsela found that the respondent's
"cursory attitude" and failure to comply with fundamental professional duties indicated
"deep rooted problems of compliance which pose a threat to the public and the
profession," leading it to conclude he was not fit and proper.⁶ As outlined in Jasat, the
second inquiry is whether "the person concerned 'in the discretion of the Court' is not a
fit and proper person to continue to practise."⁷
Appropriate Sanction: The third stage is a further exercise of discretion to decide on the
appropriate sanction. If the court finds that the person is not a fit and proper person, it
must then decide, in all the circumstances of the case, whether to remove the person's
name from the roll of attorneys or whether a suspension from practice for a specified
period would be a sufficient and appropriate order.⁸ The court in Letsela deemed the
respondent's failure to account, coupled with his poor attitude, sufficient grounds for
suspension.⁹ The Jasat case confirms this third inquiry, stating it involves deciding
whether "in all the circumstances the person in question is to be removed from the roll
of attorneys or whether an order suspending him from practice for a specified period will
suffice."¹⁰
⁴ Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA) para 10.
⁵ LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 5: The removal of lawyers who are not fit and proper.
⁶ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 para 5.
⁷ Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 para 10.
⁸ LJU4802 Learning Units, Learning Unit 3, Heading 5: The removal of lawyers who are not fit and proper.
⁹ Legal Practice Council v Letsela Nako Stanley 2021 para 5.
¹⁰ Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 para 10.
