Cape Bar Council v Stemmet (9183/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 58 (1 March 2012)

Cape Bar Council v Stemmet (9183/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 58 (1 March 2012)

The court found that the respondent was guilty of all three complaints: accepting a deposit directly from a client without an instructing attorney, dishonesty regarding instructions to withdraw from the Booysen matter, and undisclosed double briefing. The respondent's explanations were rejected as unconvincing, and his initial attitude was found to be arrogant and lacking in candour. However, in court, the respondent admitted his wrongdoing and displayed remorse. The court considered that the respondent was a first offender, the Paradise complaint was the most serious, and the other two complaints were less severe. The cumulative effect of the misconduct rendered the respondent not fit...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 58
Parties
Applicant: Cape Bar Council; Respondent: Mogamat Fareed Stemmet
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2012
Case Number
9183/2010
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The respondent is suspended from practice as an advocate for three years and ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Samela, Traverso
Legal Topics
Fit and Proper Person, Professional Misconduct, Advocate Ethics, Disciplinary Proceedings, Referral Rule, Suspension of Practitioner
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Fit and Proper Person Professional Misconduct Advocate Ethics Disciplinary Proceedings Referral Rule Suspension of Practitioner

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Bar Council

Applicant

Mogamat Fareed Stemmet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acted in an unprofessional manner unbecoming of an advocate.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to continue to practise as an advocate.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be suspended from practice and for what period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was guilty of all three complaints: accepting a deposit directly from a client without an instructing attorney, dishonesty regarding instructions to withdraw from the Booysen matter, and undisclosed double briefing. The respondent's explanations were rejected as unconvincing, and his initial attitude was found to be arrogant and lacking in candour. However, in court, the respondent admitted his wrongdoing and displayed remorse. The court considered that the respondent was a first offender, the Paradise complaint was the most serious, and the other two complaints were less severe. The cumulative effect of the misconduct rendered the respondent not fit...

Court Disposition

The respondent is suspended from practice as an advocate for three years and ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is suspended from practice for a period of three years from the date of this order.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the postponements.