LJU4802 ETHICS
PORTFOLIO
ANSWERS
, Question 1
1.1 It is not be allowed in court, because cross-examination questions should
be straight forward and not be misleading or confusing; harassing,
intimidating, humiliating or offensive; belittling, insulting or inappropriate; Are
based on a stereotype, such as age, gender or race.
1.2 The public put their trust in lawyers to carry on their profession with
integrity and honor. If attorneys depart from the high standards of professional
behaviour required of them, they should be punished. In Society Of Advocates
Of SA (Witwatersrand Division) v Fischer, Fischer removed from the roll of
advocates because his recent conduct was unbefittingof an advocate.
Fischer again defended his decision and conduct on the ground that his
political conscience did not permit him to do otherwise. This defence was to
no avail. The court held that:1
“It is the mandate of a lawyer to further the administration of justice in
regards with the laws of the country and not to frustrate it. It is the court’s
duty to uphold and enforce the laws of the country… it would be inconsistent
with that duty for the court to allow an advocate to remain on the roll when
he is defying these laws and instigates others to defy these laws”
2
In Incorporated Law Society, Natal v Hassim,an application to have
Hassim struck off the roll of attorneys was lodged. He had been convicted of
assisting with the recruitment of persons in South Africa to undergo political
and military training as part of the armed resistance to apartheid. This was a
contravention of the Terrorism Act 83 of 1967. During the trial, evidence was
led on Hassim’s moral character, good name and integrity as an attorney.
Evidence was also led that he was personally opposed to violence and had
assisted with the recruitment out of a sense of loyalty to the political
movement to which he belonged.
1 Society Of Advocates Of Sa (Witwatersrand Division) v Fischer 1966 (1). Sa 133 (T).
2 Kwazulu-Natal Law Society v Hassim (2487/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 76
PORTFOLIO
ANSWERS
, Question 1
1.1 It is not be allowed in court, because cross-examination questions should
be straight forward and not be misleading or confusing; harassing,
intimidating, humiliating or offensive; belittling, insulting or inappropriate; Are
based on a stereotype, such as age, gender or race.
1.2 The public put their trust in lawyers to carry on their profession with
integrity and honor. If attorneys depart from the high standards of professional
behaviour required of them, they should be punished. In Society Of Advocates
Of SA (Witwatersrand Division) v Fischer, Fischer removed from the roll of
advocates because his recent conduct was unbefittingof an advocate.
Fischer again defended his decision and conduct on the ground that his
political conscience did not permit him to do otherwise. This defence was to
no avail. The court held that:1
“It is the mandate of a lawyer to further the administration of justice in
regards with the laws of the country and not to frustrate it. It is the court’s
duty to uphold and enforce the laws of the country… it would be inconsistent
with that duty for the court to allow an advocate to remain on the roll when
he is defying these laws and instigates others to defy these laws”
2
In Incorporated Law Society, Natal v Hassim,an application to have
Hassim struck off the roll of attorneys was lodged. He had been convicted of
assisting with the recruitment of persons in South Africa to undergo political
and military training as part of the armed resistance to apartheid. This was a
contravention of the Terrorism Act 83 of 1967. During the trial, evidence was
led on Hassim’s moral character, good name and integrity as an attorney.
Evidence was also led that he was personally opposed to violence and had
assisted with the recruitment out of a sense of loyalty to the political
movement to which he belonged.
1 Society Of Advocates Of Sa (Witwatersrand Division) v Fischer 1966 (1). Sa 133 (T).
2 Kwazulu-Natal Law Society v Hassim (2487/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 76
