Kudo v Cape Law Society

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: van Winsen J and van Heerden J
• Judgment Date: 14 August 1972
• Citation: 1972 (4) SA 342 (C)
• Hearing Date: 07 August 1972
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Van Winsen, J.:

Applicant, who was removed from the roll of attorneys by an order of this Court on 14th December, 1966, now applies for his readmission as an attorney. Applicant, who was born in 1924, was admitted as an attorney of this Court in June, 1962, when he was 38 A years old. After being in practice for only two years certain events occurred which culminated in 1966 in an application by the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope for applicant's removal from the roll of attorneys.

The Society brought five charges against him, but did not proceed on two B of these. Applicant at the relevant times acted as an attorney for the Defence and Aid Fund, which Fund provided money needed for the legal representation of persons charged with certain types of offences. The Society alleged that applicant, in the case of four appeals, fraudulently represented to his client, the Fund, that counsel who appeared in those appeals had charged a particular fee, which fee was in C excess of the fee in fact charged by counsel. In the first of these appeals applicant represented that Adv. Rogers had charged a fee of R50, whereas his fee had in fact been R21. In regard to two further appeals Adv. Strauss, who had appeared on behalf of the two appellants, marked his brief at R42 for each appeal, whereas applicant represented to the Fund that counsel had charged R75 for each appeal. Adv. Kies, whose fee D in the fourth appeal had been R42, was also represented by applicant to have charged R75. The Society alleged that applicant, in requesting the Fund to reimburse him the fees alleged to have been charged by counsel, did so knowing that his claims were false.

E It was next alleged by the Society that applicant attempted to induce Advocates Strauss and Kies to increase the fees marked by them respectively on their briefs in connection with the aforementioned appeals in order to deceive the Fund into believing that applicant had disbursed a higher fee, thereby concealing from the Fund that he had misled it as to his disbursements in respect of the appeals. Finally it was alleged against applicant that he offered the two last mentioned F advocates a financial inducement to conceal his aforementioned deceit, the inducement being that they should share with him in the increase in fees which he desired them to mark on their briefs.

This Court found all these charges established and, concluding therefrom G that he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of attorneys, ordered his name to be struck from the roll.

An appeal against this order to the Appellate Division was dismissed in May, 1967, but that Court found that the first of the charges brought by the Society against applicant had not been established.

H Throughout the Court proceedings aforementioned and the enquiry conducted previous thereto by the Society, applicant protested his innocence and opposed the Society's efforts to have him removed from the roll of attorneys. During the course of the Society's investigation of the matter applicant made an affidavit recording an exculpating explanation for certain aspects of his conduct in connection with the subject-matter of the charges. Subsequently, when giving evidence before this Court, he conceded that the explanation was 'nonsense'. The Society's first application to strike applicant off the roll of attorneys

Van Winsen J

was objected to by applicant, thereby necessitating the withdrawal of the application and the filing of a fresh application. The proceedings relating to the matter extended over a period of approximately three years.

A After applicant's appeal...