- The dispute is about whether a law firm’s investment accounts should be treated as trust accounts that need to be audited.
- The High Court ruled in favour of the LPC and ordered that the attorney be suspended from legal practice.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal reversed that decision and directed the LPC to issue the attorney with a Fidelity Fund Certificate for 2020.
The Legal Practice Council (LPC) is taking its fight to the Constitutional Court, challenging an order that compels it to issue attorney Nicolas Petrus Maree with a Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC). This follows a dispute about how the investment accounts operated by his former law firm should be classified.
The Constitutional Court will hear the LPC’s application for leave to appeal on Thursday, 5 November 2026, at 10am, in the case of South African Legal Practice Council v Maree and Bernard Attorneys and Others. The LPC wants the entire Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment set aside. That judgment overturned an earlier High Court ruling which had been in the LPC’s favour.
Dispute over firm’s investment accounts
Maree was a partner in Maree and Bernard Attorneys Incorporated, a partnership that was dissolved in 2018. He was in charge of the firm during its operation as a partnership. After it was wound up, the firm submitted its audit report to the LPC in 2018. The accountants appointed by the firm found that its investment account was actually a trust account and needed to be audited in terms of section 65 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014.
Because of these findings, the LPC decided not to issue the firm with a Fidelity Fund Certificate for 2020. Maree and the firm then went to the High Court, asking for an order forcing the LPC to issue the certificate. They also wanted a declaration that the investment account was not a trust account.
The LPC opposed the application and filed a counter-application. It asked for Maree to be suspended from legal practice until he was issued with a valid certificate. The LPC also wanted an order stopping the firm from using the disputed investment account.
High Court ordered attorney’s suspension
The High Court found that the respondents had not shown good enough reasons for an order forcing the LPC to issue the certificate. The court accepted that the investment account needed an audit before an FFC could be issued. It held that the LPC’s decision not to issue the certificate was not a final administrative action that could be reviewed under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
On the LPC’s counter-application, the High Court found that Maree had practised without a valid FFC. It held that this was enough to find that he was not fit and proper to practise law. The court ordered that he be suspended until a court decided he was fit and proper, and a valid certificate had been issued.
The respondents were granted leave to appeal to the SCA, where they challenged the findings and orders made by the High Court.
Appeal court overturned suspension finding
The SCA looked at whether the appeal was now moot because the respondents had stopped practising. However, it still went on to consider the High Court’s findings, including its decision that attorneys who conduct investment business must have their related investment accounts audited before getting an FFC.
But the SCA drew a line between the question of whether Maree was fit and proper to practise, and the dispute about whether the firm’s investment accounts were actually trust accounts. The court found that the respondents had not gone through formal fitness and propriety proceedings, and that the real issue before the court was how the accounts should be classified in law.
The SCA therefore held that the High Court’s finding that Maree was not fit and proper to practise could not stand. On the main issue, it found that neither Chapter 7 of the Legal Practice Act nor the LPC rules, especially rule 55, require a legal practitioner’s investment practice bank account to be audited in order to get an FFC.
The appeal was upheld with no order as to costs. The SCA declared that the accounts were not trust accounts and directed the LPC to issue Maree with a Fidelity Fund Certificate for the period ending December 2020.
LPC approaches Constitutional Court
The LPC is now seeking leave to appeal against the whole SCA judgment and order. The main dispute is whether investment accounts run by legal practitioners count as trust accounts and whether they need to be audited before the LPC can issue a Fidelity Fund Certificate.
The Constitutional Court hearing will decide whether the LPC can go ahead with its appeal against the SCA ruling. If leave to appeal is granted, the court will then look at the merits of the dispute.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
Â
