- The LPC explained that the judgment in Damons N.O. and Another v Bezuidenhout did not authorise people who are not qualified or registered to carry out work reserved for practising legal practitioners.
- Section 33 of the Legal Practice Act still regulates who may appear in certain courts and tribunals, as well as who may prepare legal documents for use in proceedings and perform other reserved legal services.
- The legal industry watchdog warns that practising law without authorisation could be a criminal offence.
The South African Legal Practice Council (LPC) has warned the public not to interpret the High Court judgment as permission for law graduates, paralegals and legal consultants to offer legal services for a fee unless they are admitted and enrolled as practising legal practitioners.
In a notice published on 15 October 2026, the LPC clarified what the judgment in Damons N.O. and Another v Bezuidenhout, delivered by the High Court in Pretoria on 25 August 2025, actually means. It said the ruling does not create a general right to provide legal services and does not alter the restrictions set out in Section 33 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014.
What the judgment actually decided
This case involved company liquidators who wanted certain payments made to a former advocate declared void under section 341(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The respondent, who was struck off the roll in 2011, had been hired by the company’s director as a consultant to give advice and draft documents. He was open about no longer being on the roll, and both the director and the company’s attorney were aware of his status.
The court dismissed the liquidators’ application. In considering Section 33 of the Legal Practice Act, the judge found the respondent had not broken the law because he did not claim to be a legal practitioner, he was hired directly by the client (not through the attorney’s practice), and he only prepared draft documents rather than carrying out work reserved for legal practitioners.
The court also said that, for Section 33(1)(b), a document is only considered “intended for use” in legal proceedings once it is actually introduced into those proceedings. This includes, for example, an affidavit signed before a commissioner of oaths or a summons or pleading signed by an attorney. The court refused leave to appeal on 15 September 2025.
LPC rejects broader interpretation of ruling
The LPC said some public commentary has misrepresented the judgment, suggesting that law graduates, paralegals and legal consultants are now allowed to offer legal services to the public for payment.
The legal industry watchdog pointed out that the judgment was delivered by a single judge and was not marked as reportable or of wider interest to other judges. “It is not a decision from the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court and does not settle how Section 33 should be interpreted in all courts,” the notice read.
According to the LPC, the ruling does not give law graduates, paralegals or legal consultants any general right to provide legal services to the public. It also emphasised that the case involved someone who fully disclosed his status to a client who was represented by a practising attorney throughout.
The judgment is not a basis for marketing legal services to the public without making it clear that the service provider is not an admitted and enrolled practising legal practitioner. The court did not deal with appearances for reward in courts or tribunals, work reserved for conveyancers and notaries, or the handling of trust money. The LPC said these activities continue to be regulated by law.
Legal Practice Act restrictions remain in force
Section 33 of the Legal Practice Act prohibits people who are not admitted and enrolled as practising legal practitioners from performing certain reserved legal work for a fee or reward. This includes appearing in courts, boards, tribunals or similar bodies where only legal practitioners are allowed to appear, as well as drawing up or executing certain instruments and documents meant for use in civil or criminal court proceedings.
The law also prevents anyone who is not a legal practitioner from pretending to be one or from using any description that would suggest they are entitled to practise. In addition, anyone who is not a practising advocate, attorney, conveyancer or notary may not, for payment, carry out acts or provide services that other laws reserve for those professionals.
The LPC warned that breaking Section 33 is a criminal offence under Section 93(2) of the Act and can result in a fine, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The organisation can lay criminal charges and apply to the courts to stop unauthorised practice.
Struck-off practitioners cannot use consultancy arrangements to bypass restrictions
The LPC also addressed the position of legal practitioners who have been struck off the roll or suspended from practising. Section 33(4) forbids these practitioners from providing legal services, either directly or indirectly, for themselves or with others. They may not work in or be engaged by a legal practice unless they have the Council’s prior written consent.
Employing a struck-off or suspended practitioner in a legal practice without the required consent may also be an offence under Section 93(1). The LPC stated that the judgment does not change these restrictions. It warned that so-called consultancy agreements will be judged by their substance, not their label, especially if they amount to employing or engaging a struck-off or suspended person in a legal practice.
Attorneys remain responsible for documents they sign
The notice further stated that legal practitioners who sign and submit documents prepared by others remain personally and professionally responsible for what those documents contain. “The judgment does not allow attorneys to lend their name or signature to work done by unadmitted people as a way to get around the restrictions in the Act,” it said.
“Practitioners must also follow the Code of Conduct, which includes an obligation to do their work competently. Attorneys must also properly supervise their staff and offices.” The LPC warned that breaking the Code of Conduct amounts to professional misconduct.
Public warned about risks of using unregistered providers
The LPC urged the public to check that anyone they hire to provide legal services is a practising legal practitioner who has been admitted by the High Court and is enrolled with the entity.
Practising legal practitioners have to follow strict professional rules and are subject to the LPC’s complaints and disciplinary processes. Those who are allowed to receive trust money must also hold a Fidelity Fund certificate.
The LPC explained that these protections do not apply to services from people who are not admitted and enrolled, no matter what their qualifications or experience may be. It cannot discipline such individuals, and the Fidelity Fund will not cover money entrusted to them. Complaints about unauthorised legal practice can be made at its provincial offices.
The LPC said it will keep enforcing the restrictions in Section 33 and will take action under Section 93 of the Legal Practice Act as needed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
