LPC finds Onderberg attorney guilty, court to be approached to strike Zietta off the roll
The notorious attorney, Zietta Janse van Rensburg, feels she has the right to appeal after she was found guilty by the Legal Practice Council of three complaints that were lodged against her.
The Legal Practice Council (LPC) confirmed on Tuesday, August 20, that Zietta Janse van Rensburg had been found guilty of three complaints lodged against her during disciplinary procedures held on Monday, August 12.
The senior manager of communication and engagements for the LPC, Kabelo Letebele, said Janse van Rensburg had not attended her hearing and confirmed that after having granted her previous requests for postponement, the hearing had proceeded in her absence. The LPC said she was duly notified in terms of Section 39 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 about the procedures, which was confirmed with her.
ALSO READ: ‘Skeletons Unearthed’: Zietta Janse van Rensburg targets CPA administrator in latest podcast episode
Janse van Rensburg claimed that she had not been informed of the outcome of the hearing and heard about it when Lowvelder asked for comment.
“The Legal Practice Act requires that when we have a complaint against a legal practitioner, we deal with the matter as stipulated in sections 36 to 44 of this Act, which outlines the specific steps we need to take when dealing with disciplinary matters,” Letebele stated.
ALSO READ: BREAKING NEWS: Warrant issued for suspended attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg
The LPC said an independent disciplinary committee was used.
The committee was asked to ‘consider matters based on the complaints lodged, together with the evidence presented, as well as the response given by the legal practitioner to the complaints filed with the LPC’. “Our disciplinary committee considered complaints against Janse van Rensburg, in terms of Rule 41.1, and the committee was satisfied that due processes were followed in dealing with Janse van Rensburg’s complaints.”
ALSO READ: Malalane attorney in court on fraud charges: Zietta Janse van Rensburg’s legal woes continue
The continuation of the hearing in her absence was explained as follows: “LPC would further confirm that for a hearing, a respondent may be present at the hearing, however, when the respondent is not present, the hearing may proceed in his or her absence if the committee is satisfied that the notice of the enquiry has been received by the respondent.”
On August 12 at 10:48, Janse van Rensburg sent a lengthy founding affidavit to the LPC and Lowvelder. In the affidavit, she alleges that the LPC’s disciplinary process was rushed and unfair, that the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings was administratively unfair, and that media coverage biased the proceedings.
ALSO READ: The Onderberg’s Zietta van Rensburg implicated in ‘serious misconduct’
In response to the matter, Janse van Rensburg told Lowvelder that the email was intended to advise the LPC that she was ‘issuing an application’ and would, therefore, not be available.
An unissued draft made available to Lowvelder explains the purpose of her application: Janse van Rensburg wants the Mpumalanga High Court to invalidate the decision in terms of which the LPC launched proceedings to have her suspended, as well as other actions related to the disciplinary action taken against her. According to Janse van Rensburg, the LPC hearing would have been premature if the application had not been dealt with first. “If they continued, it is irregular and open to be challenged in review.” Janse van Rensburg did not confirm whether the application had been filed at the Mpumalanga High Court.
She stated that the media had launched a ‘one-sided character assassination’ against her and blamed the LPC for disclosing information about her case. She cited Section 37(2)(c) of the Act, which she said exists to protect the integrity of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary procedures.
ALSO READ: Six weeks of no access to bank accounts: Malalane attorney’s clients receive no help from bank
The affidavit sent on August 12 was signed and commissioned early on the day of the hearing. When asked about the context of her affidavit and why she sent it to the two parties, Janse van Rensburg explained: “As per the application, the LPC did not include any of my submissions made to the court. When I did want to make submissions, it was opposed. This whole process, since its inception, has been fatally flawed and delayed.” She claimed that she had had a ‘trial by media’, which rendered it impossible to receive an impartial hearing.
When asked why she had not attended her hearing, Janse van Rensburg said: “It was more important to issue the application to insure [sic] a fair hearing.”
The LPC confirmed that no official documents were filed with it on August 12 that could have impacted the disciplinary proceedings. To this, Janse van Rensburg commented: “The application should first be dealt with. I issued various documents during the litigation, which they failed to include in their final bundles. I further forwarded a link on Dropbox containing relevant documentation.”
The LPC said the next step would be to approach the court to apply for the striking off of Janse van Rensburg from the roll of practising legal practitioners. Janse van Rensburg’s opinion was: “Again, it is highly irregular that the media knows more than I do. There are two prevailing matters which I site [sic] in the application of the dangers of publishing information at a sensitive part of the investigation.”
She also copied Lowvelder in an email to the LPC, stating: “I am yet to receive the outcome of the hearing of 12 August 2024, and what the committee’s decision was after the affidavit was served. The media contacted me to inform me of the outcome. This is once again highly irregular. I, of course, have the right to appeal and take appropriate action upon receipt of the outcome, which I have not received.”
While some community members believe that Janse van Rensburg’s conduct constitutes crimes, Letebele added that ‘the specific criminal aspects mentioned and/or alluded to, are outside the scope of the LPC, organisations such as SAPS would deal with those aspects’. “Our legal team may opt to mention or refer to them in our court case as part of demonstrating to the court that she is not a fit and proper person to be in the legal profession.”
