A complaint was made against a lawyer who, as executor of an estate, failed to transfer shares to three beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the will.

The Standards Committee found that: “[The lawyer’s] failure to action the specific bequests, and thereby to finalise the administration of the estate, was a clear and flagrant breach of his professional obligations under Rule 3 of the RCCC. This amounted to unsatisfactory conduct in terms of section 12(c) of the Act”

In addition to a fine and costs, the lawyer was ordered to arrange for the transfer of the shares as quickly as possible and no later than three months from the date of the determination.

The complainant made a further complaint some months later as the lawyer had failed to comply with the order. The lawyer did not initially engage with the complaints process and did not take steps to rectify the situation until more than ten months after the second complaint had been made.

The Committee observed that non-compliance with an order made pursuant to section 156 of the Act may amount to unsatisfactory conduct in terms of section 12(c) of the Act. More serious cases of non-compliance may reach the threshold of possible misconduct in terms of section 7 of the Act, such that a referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal is justified.

The Committee considered that this was a relatively serious case of non-compliance. At the time of the first complaint more than five years had passed since the death of the testator and the lawyer’s inaction had caused the complainant considerable distress.

The Committee said that it was: “ …  particularly regrettable that, despite the clear wording of the order, [the lawyer] did nothing. […] This failure to comply with the Standards Committee’s order was not only a breach of the Act, it exhibited a continuing disrespect for [the testator’s] wishes ...”

The Committee was of the view that the practitioner’s non-compliance, and the further delays after receipt of the non-compliance complaint, amounted to unsatisfactory conduct in terms of section 12(c) of the Act.

It imposed a fine of $5,000 and ordered the lawyer to pay costs of $2,000 and apologise to the beneficiaries.