- Candidate attorneys must work in their principal’s office under direct personal supervision for the duration of their practical vocational training contracts.
- The LPC has withdrawn its 2022 notice that allowed remote work when proper disclosure and supervision were provided.
- Not following these rules may count as misconduct and could mean that service is not recognised for admission and enrolment.
Candidate attorneys can no longer depend on the South African Legal Practice Council’s 2022 remote working notice to work from home during their practical vocational training contracts.
In a directive issued on 31 July 2026 and effective from 3 August 2026, the LPC confirmed that Rule 22.1.3.1 requires candidate attorneys to work in the office of their principal under direct personal supervision.
This directive withdraws the notice issued on 23 November 2022, which addressed remote working for candidate attorneys during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Candidate attorneys must work in the principal’s office
The LPC states that Rule 22.1.3.1 is mandatory and requires a candidate attorney must work in the office of their principal and must do so under the direct personal supervision of the principal or an attorney who is a partner or another admitted attorney in that office.
The LPC emphasises that this rule applies throughout the duration specified in the practical vocational training contract. The directive states that “every candidate attorney must” work in the principal’s office under direct personal supervision, unless they are serving with the State Attorney, a law clinic, or Legal Aid South Africa.
This requirement links to the broader goal of practical vocational training, which is to ensure candidates gain the skills needed for admission and enrollment as legal practitioners under appropriate supervision.
Remote working is no longer a standard arrangement
The directive clarifies what the LPC means by “direct personal supervision.” It requires “regular, day-to-day, in-person oversight, guidance, and control” of a candidate attorney’s work and training in the office where the candidate works.
The practical vocational training contract clearly states that a candidate attorney working remotely or from home on a regular or default basis does not comply with Rule 22.1.3.1. Supervision done only or mostly through phone calls, emails, video conferencing, or other electronic means is also not adequate.
The directive further rules out supervision by a practitioner who is neither the principal nor a partner or another admitted attorney in the principal’s office.
LPC withdraws its 2022 remote-working notice
The LPC’s latest directive follows its review of how the 2022 notice affected practical arrangements. The notice acknowledged the rise of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic and stated that the LPC would not view remote work by candidate attorneys as a rule violation, provided both the candidate and principal disclosed the arrangements and detailed how direct personal supervision was maintained.
The LPC now asserts that this notice was merely an administrative message and could not alter, suspend, or lessen Rule 22.1.3.1. According to the LPC, the rules can only change through the process outlined in the Legal Practice Act, including publication in the Government Gazette. Therefore, the LPC insists that Rule 22.1.3.1 remains fully applicable despite the 2022 notice.
The LPC has found that since the notice, uncertainty surrounding the supervision requirement had emerged, including situations where candidates received little or no direct personal supervision. It noted instances where supervision was only through electronic communication, supervision was provided by practitioners outside the principal’s office, and extended periods where principals were absent from their practices.
Limited absences remain allowed
The directive does not eliminate every situation where a candidate attorney may be away from the office. It outlines the current accepted forms of absence, including up to 30 working days a year with the principal’s consent, LPC-authorised absence, approved training courses, certain approved service with another attorney, and study leave for competency-based exams.
The LPC states these remain the lawful reasons for absence during the practical vocational training contract. Principals and candidate attorneys had to adjust their working arrangements to comply with Rule 22.1.3.1 by 3 August 2026.
Non-compliance could affect admission
The directive carries important consequences for both candidate attorneys and their principals. The LPC states that failure by a legal practitioner, candidate legal practitioner, or juristic entity to comply with Rule 22.1.3.1 counts as misconduct under paragraph 2A of the Code of Conduct and might lead to referral to the Council’s disciplinary bodies.
It also warns that service done outside the rule’s requirements may not be recognised as proper service under a practical vocational training contract. This could have serious effects on a candidate attorney’s admission and enrollment, with the directive specifically warning that non-compliance by principals may “gravely prejudice” candidates they employ.
For admission applications, candidates and principals must continue to fully disclose any period during which the candidate did not work in the principal’s office and explain how direct personal supervision was maintained.
The directive applies going forward
The LPC distinguishes between service rendered before and after the effective date. The directive operates going forward. Service done before 3 August 2026 will be evaluated with consideration of the 2022 notice, provided that required disclosure under that notice was included in the admission application.
For service conducted from 3 August 2026, however, the LPC will evaluate compliance strictly according to the new directive. It may oppose an admission application if the rule was not followed or alert the court to the non-compliance.
The LPC says it is still considering whether Rule 22.1.3.1 should eventually change to explicitly address supervision in modern working environments. Until any amendment is formally made through the required process in the Legal Practice Act, the LPC states the rule continues to apply as it is.
The directive was signed by Acting Executive Officer Pearl Arnold Mfusi in Midrand and applies to all services under a practical vocational training contract.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
