Full Episode on corruption within the Legal Practice of SA
When the Law Society Tried to Don the Judge’s Wig—and How Peet Stopped It
In many jurisdictions, law societies act as gatekeepers of professional conduct—but they are not courts. Historically, these associations occasionally crossed the line, venturing into territory reserved for judicial authorities: determining whether a lawyer was “fit and proper” to practice. The intentional or inadvertent shifting of this power blurred the lines between administrative oversight and judicial determination, undermining the impartiality that courts typically ensure.
The Status Quo: Society vs. Judiciary
Law societies, structured to protect public interest and uphold practitioners’ ethics, have sometimes taken it upon themselves to make final decisions on fitness-to-practice matters. While typically well-meaning, this overlap risked undermining the procedural fairness and judicial independence central to our legal system. Without the neutrality of a court hearing, decisions could skew toward administrative convenience rather than balanced adjudication.
Peet Viljoen’s Game-Changing Case
Enter Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Viljoen [2010] ZASCA 176. In this pivotal appeal, Peet Viljoen challenged the Law Society’s attempt to withhold his fidelity fund certificate—an administrative duty—based on contested disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal delivered a sharp rebuke:
• It reaffirmed that questions of whether an attorney is “fit and proper” must be decided by courts, not by law society bodies. That’s a boundary clearly delineated and now firmly reinforced by case law.
• The Court dismissed the Society’s appeal and did something remarkable—it ordered costs against the Law Society, an extraordinary outcome in such contexts. 
This ruling marked a decisive moment. It restored proper jurisdictional boundaries, ensured due process, and reminded regulatory bodies of their role as part of the profession’s infrastructure—not the bench itself.
How Often Has This Case Been Cited?
Citations of this decision provide insight into its impact:
• Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Le Roux (2015) referenced it, including a citation to paragraph 15 of the Viljoen judgment. 
• A 2024 disciplinary decision referred back to the case as well, confirming its continued relevance in fitness-to-practice jurisprudence. 
While explicit citation counts aren’t readily available, these examples showcase enduring judicial reliance on Viljoen’s precedent to reaffirm that fitness-to-practice determinations belong solely to the courts.
⸻
Final Takeaway
• Bulletproof Boundary: Viljoen’s case reaffirmed that law societies must not straddle into judicial functions.
• Procedural Safeguard: It fortified the principle of procedural fairness—only adjudicative courts, with full hearing rights, may assess a practitioner’s professional fitness.
• Enduring Influence: Ongoing citations—years later—signal its importance in South African legal practice and disciplinary jurisprudence.
Saflii case: Supreme Court of Appeal >> 2010 >> [2010] ZASCA 176 | Noteup | LawCite Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Another v Viljoen, Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Another v Dykes and Others (2011 (2) SA 327 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 133 (SCA)) [2010] ZASCA 176; 094/2010, 648/10 (2 December 2010)