Virtual hearing for Onderberg attorney Zietta van Rensburg

A virtual hearing was held in the Mpumalanga High Court to determine whether Malalane attorney, notary and conveyancer Zietta van Rensburg can continue to practise law.

The basis of the Legal Practice Council’s (LPC) case against her is that if Van Rensburg is left to continue practising, the public will suffer irreparable harm. The case was yesterday (March 22) presented by Adv T Ratshibvumo of the LPC.

Judges Brian Mashile and AJ Coetzee heard the LPC argue that Van Rensburg’s suspension order should be made final to protect the unsuspecting public from further damage and harm. Ratshibvumo further stated that Van Rensburg could come and defend herself at the LPC during the disciplinary procedures.

Van Rensburg did not attend the proceedings, and Judge Mashile had to enquire twice to find out whether she was indeed not present at the virtual hearing.

In an article published in Lowvelder on March 7, it was reported that while no one had found her guilty of any crime or misconduct, the judgment by Judge Mashile and Acting Judge JL Bhengu explained why her suspension by court order was necessary at this time.

• Firstly, the LPC has, based on its investigations to date, concluded that she had likely misappropriated trust monies or made herself guilty of serious misconduct.
• Secondly, the complaints against her were serious enough to grant a court’s intervention to protect the public.

The judges did not accept her arguments that the matters to which the complaints related were sub judice, nor that there were disputes of fact involved that would warrant not suspending her.

This, Van Rensburg argues, placed her in a position in which she was ‘forced to fight with my hands tied behind my back’.

She intends to appeal the suspension based on the court’s non-acceptance of her arguments that she could not respond to all allegations based on cases being sub judice.

“This and attorney-client privilege places me in a difficult position – I cannot respond fully while bound by these confidentiality rules, which means that my right to be heard in terms of the audi alteram partem rule is not effected.”

She also indicated that the LPC’s case was not supported by adequate supporting documentation from the victims themselves.

The Supreme Court of Appeal has not yet granted her leave to appeal, but the LPC has since confirmed that she may continue to practise in the interim. Judge Mashile reserved judgment on yesterday’s application (March 22) until Monday or Tuesday, March 25 or 26.