- JSA rejects claims that lawyers become complicit in dishonesty by advancing a client’s disputed version.
- Rule 3.1 prohibits advocates from knowingly misleading courts or relying on false evidence.
- Society says advocates’ independence is essential to the administration of justice and the constitutional right to legal representation.
The Johannesburg Society of Advocates has spoken up in support of advocates’ independence, saying that legal representatives must be free to act for unpopular clients without facing accusations of dishonesty.
In Circular 2026/039, dated 7 September 2026, the JSA noted that some recent public commentary has incorrectly suggested that lawyers are morally or legally complicit in dishonesty just by presenting a client’s disputed version of events. The society said this idea requires correction.
Rule 3.1 sets the ethical standard
The JSA explained that advocates are still bound by Rule 3.1 of the Code of Conduct for All Legal Practitioners, Candidate Legal Practitioners and Juristic Entities. This rule forbids advocates from knowingly misleading any court or tribunal or knowingly relying on false evidence.
However, the society emphasised that an advocate is not the client, does not become identified with the client’s cause and does not personally guarantee the truth of every instruction received.
“An advocate is not the client, does not become identified with the client’s cause and does not personally warrant the truth of every instruction received” the circular states.
The society also said that advocates are not morally or legally responsible for every factual claim a client makes unless they know it is false.
Suspicion is not knowledge
The JSA referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in Van der Berg v General Council of the Bar of South Africa (2007), describing it as the leading authority on this question.
According to the society, the court confirmed that even if an advocate suspects a client’s evidence might be false, that is not the same as knowing it is false. The difference between suspicion and knowledge is central to an advocate’s ethical duties. “Representation is not endorsement”, the JSA said.
Independence protects justice
The society said advocates must remain free to represent unpopular clients, challenge adverse evidence and put forward their clients’ cases fearlessly, as long as they stay within professional ethics.
Although the JSA acknowledged that public scrutiny of lawyers is legitimate, it warned that accusing counsel of dishonesty simply for doing their professional duty undermines a vital constitutional principle.
The society said the independence of advocates is vital to the proper administration of justice and protects everyone’s constitutional right to legal representation.
The circular, signed by JSA Chair Adv D Mahon SC, concludes, “Every person is entitled to representation. Every advocate is entitled to professional independence.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
