- Former advocate Leonard Francois Bezuidenhout failed in his application to be readmitted after being struck from the roll in 2011.
- Former SAPS detective Jan Coetzee failed in his application to compel the Legal Practice Council to register his practical vocational training contract.
- Both courts found that the applicants had not established grounds for the relief they sought.
Two applicants seeking either to return to the legal profession or enter it for the first time have suffered setbacks in separate judgments.
In Gauteng, Leonard Francois Bezuidenhout failed in his bid to be readmitted as an advocate more than a decade after he was struck from the roll for dishonest billing practices linked to Road Accident Fund matters.
In the Western Cape, former South African Police Service detective Jan Coetzee failed in an application aimed at compelling the Legal Practice Council to register his practical vocational training contract after the regulator placed the application in abeyance pending further criminal record verification.
Readmission application opposed
Bezuidenhout brought an ex parte application seeking readmission as an advocate after being struck from the roll on 29 September 2011.
The Pretoria Society of Advocates, which had initiated the original striking-off proceedings, intervened in the matter and opposed the application.
The court heard that Bezuidenhout’s removal from the profession followed an investigation into the practice of double charging in Road Accident Fund trials.
According to the judgment, advocates involved in the practice accepted multiple trial briefs for the same day and charged trial fees in matters that were settled without proceeding to trial.
The court referred to earlier findings that Bezuidenhout faced 819 charges of misconduct and had been obstructive during disciplinary proceedings.
An earlier Full Court found that he had shown no remorse and had received approximately R5.9 million in what was described as “ill-gotten gains” between February and November 2009.
The judgment also noted findings that the misconduct continued after investigations had commenced.
Court examines rehabilitation
In support of his application, Bezuidenhout told the court that he had reformed and that the character defects which led to his removal no longer existed.
He apologised for his conduct and submitted that he was a fit and proper person to be readmitted. The court, however, examined whether he had demonstrated genuine, complete and permanent reformation.
The court stated that words are just words, and a person’s character can only be measured by their conduct. It found that Bezuidenhout continued to minimise aspects of the misconduct that led to his removal.
The judgment referred to statements made by the applicant in which he attempted to distinguish his conduct from that of other advocates implicated in similar schemes.
The court found that he failed to acknowledge the dishonest nature of his conduct and had not made full disclosure regarding the extent of the financial benefit he received.
When questioned about why he had not disclosed the full extent of the gains, the applicant said it had not occurred to him to do so. The court also considered the fact that no restitution had been made.
“That is, to my mind, disqualifying to a candidate who applies for re-admission on the basis that he has grasped the nature of his transgression and has undergone a character change,” the judgment stated.
The court concluded that Bezuidenhout had failed to prove the genuine, complete and permanent reformation required for readmission. His application was dismissed with attorney-and-client costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Former detective challenges LPC decision
The second matter concerned Jan Coetzee, a former detective who served in the South African Police Service for approximately 32 years before obtaining an LLB degree.
On 30 January 2025, Coetzee applied to register a practical vocational training contract with the Legal Practice Council. The judgment records that he disclosed two assault convictions arising from incidents in 2001.
Although the convictions were later expunged, the LPC sought additional information relating to the convictions, rehabilitation, a psychological assessment and confirmation that there had been no further incidents of domestic or gender-based violence.
Coetzee eventually submitted a psychological assessment, which concluded that he was a fit and proper person and presented a low risk of repeating the conduct underlying the convictions. The LPC also requested consent to conduct criminal record verification through the South African Police Service. Coetzee declined to provide consent.
According to the judgment, he believed the request was unnecessary because he had already disclosed the convictions and provided a police clearance certificate.
In November 2025, the LPC informed him that his application would be held in abeyance pending consent to the verification process.
Urgent application fails
Coetzee launched urgent proceedings in February 2026 seeking an order compelling the LPC to register the practical vocational training contract and permit him to write competency examinations scheduled for March 2026. The matter was removed from the urgent roll and later came before a full bench.
During the litigation, Coetzee sought to amend his notice of motion substantially. The proposed amendments included claims for compensation, declarations relating to his fitness to enter the profession and other forms of relief.
The court dismissed the amendment application, finding that it sought to replace the original case with an entirely different one. The judges also dismissed a discovery application in which Coetzee sought access to various LPC documents and records.
LPC acted lawfully
Turning to the main application, the court found that the LPC had not refused to register the training contract but had instead placed the matter in abeyance pending completion of its enquiries. The court rejected the argument that the LPC lacked the power to delay a decision.
The judgment held that the LPC’s duty to determine whether an applicant is fit and proper necessarily includes the ability to defer a decision while gathering information required to complete that assessment.
The court also rejected Coetzee’s arguments that the criminal record verification was irrational or unnecessary. According to the judgment, a police clearance certificate and a targeted criminal verification process are not the same.
The judges found that the LPC was entitled to verify information relating to the applicant’s disclosed criminal history. The court further found that the decision was neither procedurally unfair nor irrational.
The applicant remains free to consent to the check, whereupon the LPC must complete its assessment, the judgment stated. The court ultimately dismissed the amendment application, discovery application and main application.
Coetzee was ordered to pay attorney-and-client costs relating to the amendment application, while each party was directed to bear its own costs in relation to the remaining proceedings.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
