Misappropriation of R50,000 from a client has torpedoed an attorney's four-decade long legal career.
The high court in Cape Town has struck Deon Beukman, 70, from the roll of attorneys after an investigation by the Legal Practice Council (LPC), which recommended the veteran lawyer be stripped of his robes.
The nature of the dispute dates back 16 years to when Beukman’s client, who had appointed him as a conveyancer, purchased a property in Somerset West for R550,000.
The client paid him R561,921 and “consented to certain funds being paid to expedite the registration of the transfer”. Beukman paid R41,250 in commission to an estate agent, but the seller died in February 2009 before the transfer could be registered.
The executor of the deceased estate cancelled the sale after finding the estate insolvent. Beukman refunded his client R481,653 along with interest of R67,895.
However, the client took legal action, claiming he was owed the full R561,921 plus R69,563 in interest. Beukman later agreed to settle the matter for R50,000, but failed to make the payment.
The LPC received the complaint in 2021 and brought it before a disciplinary panel in April last year. The panel found Beukman guilty of bringing the profession into disrepute by failing to pay back the R50,000 as agreed.
“He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, however, during his cross-examination he changed his plea to guilty,” the judgment reads.
The panel recommended the LPC apply to have him struck off the roll, which it did last August. Beukman initially opposed the application, but later conceded. The high court upheld the panel’s findings.
“[Beukman] was ordered to pay compensation to the buyer in the amount of R50,000 in terms of the settlement agreement entered into between them, within six months of receipt of the LPC’s decision,” the judgment reads.
He was also ordered to pay the costs of the hearing. In an affidavit filed in the matter, Beukman argued that the LPC’s decision had a serious effect on his ability to earn a living. He said it had strained his relationships with attorneys, forced him to vacate his office, give up administrative support, and stop fee-sharing in Road Accident Fund (RAF) matters.
[Beukman’s] offending conduct is not confined to the admitted act of misappropriating R50,000, which may appear to be an insignificant amount to some, though not to this court in the context of the issues raised by this application. [His] offending conduct is compounded by his further actions which displayed persistent dishonesty, a lack of reliability, and called his integrity into question
— Judgment
But the court questioned the credibility of his claims about his financial situation.
“[Beukman] addressed his livelihood in his replying affidavit ... in a single paragraph,” the judgment reads.
“When regard is had to that paragraph and what he further told this court about his livelihood during the hearing, his version can best be described as opaque, if not also contradictory.”
The court said this was at odds with what Beukman said during a hearing on June 18.
“[Beukman] informed this court that he is presently sharing fees from RAF matters with at least one attorney, and offices to a limited extent to consult with clients — conduct for which, on his own version, he could be disbarred given the findings of the LPC against him that were arrived at after his admission of guilt.”
Beukman told the court he now works from home and acts as a consultant for another lawyer. He assists with initiating and finalising RAF claims, meets clients at the other lawyer’s office, and receives 50% of contingency fees once claims are settled. He said he does not appear in court or handle any funds.
When asked how he supports himself, Beukman told the court he receives about R15,000 per month in maintenance from his son, along with about R12,000 more each month to cover life insurance policies. This arrangement, the court heard, was based on an oral loan agreement, secured by ceding the proceeds of his life policy to his son.
The court said Beukman's actions had damaged the integrity of the legal profession.
“To be clear, [Beukman’s] offending conduct is not confined to the admitted act of misappropriating R50,000, which may appear to be an insignificant amount to some, though not to this court in the context of the issues raised by this application,” the judgment reads. “[His] offending conduct is compounded by his further actions which displayed persistent dishonesty, a lack of reliability, and called his integrity into question.”
The court ruled on Friday that Beukman be struck from the roll of attorneys and ordered him to hand in his certificate of enrolment to the registrar within five days.
He was instructed to pay the outstanding R50,000 to his former client by November 30. Failure to do so could result in contempt of court proceedings. He will also have to foot the legal costs of the case.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.