Umhlanga attorney hits back at Legal Practice Council over its application to suspend him

Umhlanga attorney Shahir Ramdass has strongly criticised a Legal Practice Council (LPC) application to suspend him from practice, saying it is “ill conceived and draconian”.

TimesLIVE Premium last week reported the LPC had launched the court application, to be heard in September, as a result of complaints by three clients.

An investigations committee subsequently determined he had rolled trust fund money in a conveyancing transaction, failed to properly wind up a deceased estate and had “transferred”, without authority, R5m from another deceased estate.

It wants the Pietermaritzburg high court to suspend Ramdass from practice pending a full investigation by a disciplinary panel into the allegations.

Ramdass, in his answering affidavit, denies any wrongdoing.

Further, he said, the LPC had wilfully not disclosed material facts, had failed to comply with its own rules and to exhaust its internal processes obliging it to convene an inquiry to establish whether the complaints had any merit before heading to court.

He said the LPC, while contending the matter was urgent, had set it down to be heard in September “without considering the consequences” which had resulted in clients leaving the firm which “would not be able to recover, even if the application is dismissed”.

Ramdass said estate agents had withdrawn their instructions and all four major banks had removed the firm from their panels.

This had resulted in the LPC acting as “judge, jury and executioner”.

The conveyancing matter involved the purchase by a doctor of two Umhlanga apartments.

The LPC’s legal officer Wade Paul claimed in his affidavit Ramdass had deposited the money paid by the doctor into a business account which had been used for another transaction.

But Ramdass said the LPC had confused the doctor's account and the firm’s trust account.

“It is clear from my bank statements it was paid into the practice trust account,” he said.

He said the LPC had not disclosed an amount equivalent to R1.45m “which my conveyancing staff were informed was to be expected to be paid in respect of another unit in the same development” had led to the error.

This was compounded by the fact the doctor had only reflected “office/flat” on his payment notification at a time when the firm was handling the transfer of about 400 units in the same development. 

Regarding the first deceased estate, of which a minor was one of the beneficiaries, Paul said seven years later only a draft liquidation and distribution account had been prepared.

The complainant had alleged Ramdass, as administrator, had not paid levies in respect of one of the properties in the estate and had stopped paying her and her son’s medical aid contributions in 2018.

Ramdass said the LPC had failed to disclose the estate had been depleted by monthly payments to the heir of more than R100,000 a month.

He said the medical aid issue was an “administrative error” which had been resolved. The winding up of the estate was “nowhere near as simple” as made out by the LPC and had been bedevilled by the lack of liquidity and conflicts between family members.

“I went beyond the call of duty,” he said.

In the second deceased estate matter, the executor complained Ramdass, who was the administrator, had taken R5m out of the account without authority and had been unable to account for it.

Ramdass said, however, the will was a forgery and “was proven to be so after a handwriting expert confirmed it”.

I am being judged and condemned in the court of public opinion without being given the opportunity to defend myself.

—  Umhlanga attorney Shahir Ramdass 

“This was conveyed to the master of the high court, who was fully apprised of developments. Consequently I could not disclose the whereabouts of the funds and release it to the (executor) who would have dissipated the funds, specially since neither he nor his mother (the purported heir) would have been entitled to proceeds from the estate.

“The funds remained intact in an account and are available to be paid to the rightful heirs,” Ramdass said, accusing the LPC of withholding this evidence and that the master had agreed with his approach.

He said he had informed the LPC of the identity of the banks holding the funds.

He said claims by Paul he had not co-operated with the inspection committee were not true, and that it had made “vague and general” demands for all bank statements. In the conveyancing matter, the complaint had only surfaced after eight years and he had to obtain archived statements from the bank.

The LPC’s “premature” application had caused him and the firm severe financial prejudice exacerbated by the fact that Nedbank, the holder of the firm’s trust account, had misinterpreted the notice of motion and froze the firm’s trust and business accounts “so I was unable to effect payment of funds to parties who were due to proceeds from sale”.

“This endeavour took three days for the bank accounts to be restored. My members of staff are in a state of panic as they are sole breadwinners and uncertain whether they would receive salaries and have already commenced procedures to seek employment elsewhere. This spells the demise of the practice,” Ramdass said.

He said the LPC’s submissions were based on “misconceptions, misconstruction and a clear miscomprehension of the complaints, read together with the responses by me, which would have rendered the application unnecessary”.

He said there was never a shortfall in his trust account.

“The suspicions harboured by the applicant [the LPC] are devoid of any substance. It was driven by a false narrative. The application deprives me of my constitutional right to be heard, in this case the forum being the disciplinary hearing. I am being judged and condemned in the court of public opinion without being given the opportunity to defend myself.”