Local at torney suspended After months of speculation, the Rekord can now confirm that Mr Leon Etsebeth, of Locketts Attorneys, Nigel, has been suspended by the Legal Practice Council. The suspension follows a number of complaints against him by his erstwhile clients, at least one of which has led to a criminal investigation being instituted against him. The Rekord is in possession of formal correspondence from the Legal Practice Council confirming the suspension. In terms of the correspondence: “Mr L Etsebeth was suspended from practising as an attorney on October 8, 2019, in terms of a Court Order granted by the Gauteng Division High Court – Pretoria [Republic of South Africa] under case number 66994/2019 and Mr Johan Van Staden, Head of Members Affairs of the Legal Practice Council has been appointed as the Curator Bonis over the practice.” The correspondence further confirms that the Legal Practice Council is in possession of “client files and ledger accounts of the firm”. In an attempt to establish what the suspension meant for Mr L Etsebeth’s clients, the Rekord sought the opinion of Mr J P Okes, a partner at Kruger & Okes Attorneys Nigel. In the words of Mr Okes: “Mr Etsebeth may not, in terms of the suspension, practise as an attorney. Although attorneys are
inclined to refer to “their clients”, the truth of the matter is that an attorney is chosen by his/her client, and the attorney is therefore practically employed by the client. Perhaps it would be more accurate for attorneys to refer to their “employers”. As such the “employer” [client] can terminate the “employment” of the “employee” [attorney] at any point in time. The “employer” [client] does not even have to show a good reason for such termination. So the first and most important thing to remember is that the client’s file belongs to the client and not the attorney. Where an attorney is suspended a previous client would be wise to immediately have his/her file transferred to a new attorney of his/her choosing. Failure to do so may result in the client suffering damages that the client is
unlikely to be able to recover. The suspended attorney has no right to prescribe [although he may make a recommendation] a specific attorney to the client. To do so would be unethical. Previous clients of Mr Etsebeth should therefore, in an attempt to prevent damages, immediately make contact with the Legal Practice Council to make arrangements to obtain their files. Insofar as previous clients of Mr Etsebeth may have suffered damages as a result of Mr Etsebeth’s alleged conduct, those clients may have a claim for compensation against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund. Any such claim must be instituted without delay, and I strongly urge any potential
claimants to immediately seek legal advice on this process.” Mr Etsebeth practised as an attorney in Nigel since the early 1980’s and, prior to his suspension, was considered by all of his colleagues [including Mr Okes] to be a highly competent and professional attorney. Only time will reveal the full extent of his conduct and the consequences thereof. What appears clear, however, is that “Locketts Attorneys” has come to the end of its era. Readers who wish to know more about the process of instituting a claim against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund will f ind guidelines on the Law Society of South Africa’s and Fidelity Fund’s websites namely: www.lssa.org.za and www.fidfund.co.za.