Umhlanga attorney suspended from practice

Well known Umhlanga-based attorney Shahir Ramdass has been suspended from practice.

This follows a court application by the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for his suspension on allegations he “rolled” trust fund money in a property transaction, failed to wind up a deceased estate after seven years, and “transferred”, without authority, R5m from another deceased estate.

Pietermaritzburg high court acting judge Rithi Singh granted an order in favour of the LPC on Monday.

This means a curator will be appointed to take control of Ramdass’ practice and his trust account.

Ramdass will be subjected to a disciplinary inquiry.

He told TimesLIVE the order was taken by consent so the inquiry could be done as quickly as possible.

“We have been in engagement with the LPC, and more specially in light of the theft we have uncovered regarding an employee who was in a position of trust. It appeared to be the only basis to co-operate and assist with their participation in our present predicament,” he said.

He said he did not expect the process to take long because he had addressed the issues and they were “easily explained”.

The order granted on Monday states the application was withdrawn against Ramdass’ sister Shivani, a former director of the firm, on condition she undertook not to practise for her own account for 12 months, “but will be entitled to do so under the supervision of another legal practitioner”.

The LPC reserved its rights to take disciplinary action against her pursuant to further investigations should there be a reason to do so.

The LPC filed the application in July based on three complaints made against Ramdass which were probed by an investigations committee.

The LPC claimed in its affidavit that Ramdass had refused to co-operate with the investigation and had withheld documentation.

Legal officer Wade Paul said investigations showed Ramdass had “failed to act honourably”, had a total disregard for the interests of clients and was possibly guilty of misappropriating or mishandling trust monies.

Two of the three complaints against him related to deceased estates.

The other related to the purchase of two upmarket Umhlanga properties by a doctor which, some seven years later, had not been transferred into his name.

Ramdass claimed he had been dealing with 400 transfers, that the doctor's money had not been “identified” and had remained in his suspense account.

However, Paul said the money had been used for another transaction which was “misappropriation of trust money”.

In the first complaint regarding a substantial deceased estate, of which a minor was one of the beneficiaries, the inspection committee noted Ramdass had not co-operated with the investigation.

At the time of the inspection, some seven years later, only a draft liquidation and distribution account had been prepared by him.

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.

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, in his response to the complaint, said he had moved the funds to a Nedbank corporate saver account.

At a disciplinary hearing documentation can be presented under the pain of subpoena and a true and proper picture may unfold and test the statements made by Ramdass in his response to the complaints against him.

—  Legal officer Wade Paul 

Paul said: “At a disciplinary hearing documentation can be presented under the pain of subpoena and a true and proper picture may unfold and test the statements made by Ramdass in his response to the complaints against him.

“If he had nothing to be apprehensive about, one would have expected him to unequivocally and immediately submit each and every statement requested.”

However, in his papers Ramdass claimed to have done nothing wrong.

Ramdass said since news of the application became public knowledge, 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”.

With regards to the conveyancing matter, he admitted the money had been allocated to the wrong transaction by his staff, but said this was because an equivalent amount had been expected at the time in relation to another unit in the same development.

The error 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, Ramdass said the LPC had failed to disclose the estate had been depleted by payments to the heir of more than R100,000 a month, and he had gone “beyond the call of duty” to deal with the complex estate, bedevilled by liquidity and conflicts between family members.

The will in the second deceased estate, he said, was a “forgery”, a fact he had informed the Master’s office about.

He said he could not disclose to the executor where the funds were being held to protect them.

“The funds remained intact in an account and are available to be paid to the rightful heirs,” he said.

He accused the LPC of withholding information he had given the inspections committee in its application.