When Compelling Your Estranged Spouse To Return Home Goes Wrong.

The Legal Practice Council (LPC) is a statutory entity established pursuant to section 4 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014. The primary mission of the LPC, in collaboration with its Provincial Councils, is the preservation and elevation of the integrity and prestige of the legal profession. This mission encompasses the promotion of rigorous standards in legal education and training, as well as the regulation of all legal practitioners operating within its jurisdiction. Notably, the LPC carries the weighty responsibility of safeguarding the public interest by ensuring that legal practitioners consistently conduct themselves in a manner that advances and defends the welfare of the public.

In fulfillment of its role in safeguarding the public's interest, the LPC possesses disciplinary powers explicitly aimed at investigating allegations of unprofessional conduct by legal practitioners practicing within its jurisdiction. In the case of Keele v The Legal Practice Council and Another, the Applicant instituted a review application against the first Respondent, the LPC, and the second Respondent, the attorney representing his estranged wife. This application sought to challenge the LPC's decision not to find the second Respondent's conduct in violation of LPC regulations.

Preceding this application, the Applicant had retained legal representation to act on his behalf. The Applicant's attorney was tasked with demanding the return of his estranged wife to the matrimonial home and advocating for reconciliation, in accordance with the Applicant's instructions. However, the Applicant's estranged wife did not share his perspective regarding his marital rights and her marital responsibilities, and she declined to return to the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the Applicant terminated his attorney's mandate and then insisted that the second Respondent, representing his estranged wife, advise her to return to the matrimonial home. The Applicant contended that his wife had left the matrimonial home without securing the Applicant's consent. He asserted his retention of conjugal rights and claimed that her departure from the matrimonial home lacked legal justification. The Applicant demanded that his wife be compelled to return to the matrimonial home and reconcile with him. However, the second Respondent did not seek instructions from the Applicant and, aligning with her client's wishes, did not advise her to return.

Following these events, the Applicant's estranged wife instructed the second Respondent to prepare a parenting plan aimed at facilitating the cooperative exercise of parental responsibilities by both parties. The second Respondent executed this instruction and submitted the parenting plan for the Applicant's consideration. Nevertheless, the Applicant chose not to engage substantially, if at all, with the parenting plan proposed by his estranged wife. Instead, he launched a rigorous inquiry into the qualifications, experience, skills, and capabilities of the second Respondent, directing his concerns to the LPC. Exasperated by the lack of adherence to his demands and the divergence of viewpoints, the Applicant voiced his dissatisfaction, particularly directed at the second Respondent for not adhering to his directives.

The LPC's investigation of the Applicant's complaint encompassed an examination of the validity of the instructions received by the second Respondent from the Applicant's estranged wife and the execution of those instructions. Ultimately, the LPC concluded that the second Respondent's conduct neither violated ethical standards nor deviated from the norms and standards expected of a competent and ethical legal practitioner. The LPC informed the Applicant that they only investigated allegations of unprofessional conduct of Legal Practitioners practicing within their jurisdiction and the nature of his complaint did not fall within the scope of our powers of investigation.??Consequently, the LPC found the second Respondent's actions to be in accordance with LPC rules. The powers of the LPC are disciplinary in nature. Aggrieved members of the public can report substandard, unethical conduct and gross misconduct of legal practitioners. The LPC cannot be used as a platform to further one’s personal agenda.

This case illuminates a distinctive legal scenario where personal and emotional issues intersect with legal practice, culminating in disputes that necessitate the intervention of regulatory bodies like the LPC. It underscores the critical significance of upholding professionalism and adhering to ethical standards, even in emotionally charged situations within the legal profession.

Written by Mamoraka Ramodise , Candidate Attorney.