- The LPC could not prove that Roux dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated trust money.
- The attorney admitted to failing to comply with trust account requirements. However, the R36 170 deficit caused by a SARS deduction was repaid from his own money, so clients were not left out of pocket.
- Judges ordered a one-year suspension, wholly suspended for three years, on condition that Roux is not found guilty of dishonesty related to his practice during that period.
An attorney with 44 years of experience and a clean disciplinary record has been handed a one-year suspension, suspended in full for three years, after the High Court in Bloemfontein found he did not comply with statutory requirements for trust investment accounts.
However, the judges dismissed the Legal Practice Council’s allegations that Lambert Hendrik Roux acted dishonestly, committed fraud or misappropriated trust funds.
Trust account failures exposed by SARS deduction
Roux, who practises as an attorney, notary and conveyancer through Brink Roux Wesselsbron Inc, was asked to transfer a property in Odendaalsrus to a buyer, Ms Hlalele. She paid the purchase price and transfer costs into the firm’s trust account in October 2024.
Although the buyer asked for her money to be put in an interest-bearing account under Section 86(4) of the Legal Practice Act, the firm moved R203 000 into an existing trust savings account that did not meet the legal requirements.
In April 2025, SARS instructed Absa to take R36 170 from that account to cover tax liabilities. This deduction temporarily left a shortfall in the trust, which Roux later made up using his personal funds.
Roux reported the issue to the LPC after getting advice. He maintained that he believed the account had been properly opened under Section 86(4) and that the money belonged to the client. He fixed the shortfall in November 2025. The judges found that no client, trust creditor or third party lost money as a result.
Legal Practice Council sought to strike attorney off
The LPC tried to have Roux struck from the roll of legal practitioners, claiming he dishonestly and fraudulently transferred trust money into another account held by his firm. It argued that these transactions amounted to misappropriation and deserved the harshest professional sanction.
Roux admitted two administrative mistakes. The account had not been properly identified as a Section 86(4) trust investment account, and funds from several conveyancing clients had been invested in the same account. He denied any intention to use the money for unauthorised purposes.
This followed an earlier case in which the High Court dismissed the council’s attempt to extend Roux’s precautionary suspension. In that judgment, the judges noted his cooperation, his admission of the irregularities, and that he fixed the shortfall.
In the later striking-off application, the LPC relied on an audit report and argued that further irregularities justified removing Roux from practice.
Judges reject allegations of fraud and dishonesty
Writing for the court, Judge JP Daffue, with Judge C van Zyl agreeing, found the evidence did not support the council’s serious allegations.
The court accepted Roux’s explanation that the money was always treated as trust funds and that he did not mean to misappropriate it. His immediate disclosure of the SARS deduction, cooperation with the investigation and repayment of the money backed up his version.
Judge Daffue said, “He is not a fraudster or a thief as suggested by the LPC.” The judge did find that Roux had breached section 86(4) of the Legal Practice Act. Not following the statutory rules meant the funds could be seized to pay the firm’s tax.
The judgment stressed that accusations of fraud, dishonesty and misappropriation require clear evidence. The council had not shown that Roux intentionally diverted trust money for an unauthorised purpose.
The court also criticised the LPC for pursuing the striking-off application even after the earlier judgment and without providing new evidence to support its stance.
Suspension imposed despite clean disciplinary record
The judges took into account Roux’s long career, clean record, his admission of mistakes and the fact that clients did not lose money. They found his misconduct did not show he was unfit to practise, but a warning alone would not be enough given the seriousness of the lapses.
Judge Daffue said the mistakes could have had serious consequences and caused significant losses to trust clients, so a disciplinary sanction was warranted.
The court ordered that Roux be suspended for one year, wholly suspended for three years, on the condition that he is not found guilty by the council’s disciplinary committee of any dishonest act related to his practice during that time. Each party must pay its own costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
