When you need help with a legal problem, it is reasonable to expect that the person you pay is authorised to do the work. However, titles such as “legal consultant”, “paralegal” or “law graduate” do not, on their own, confirm that someone is a practising attorney or advocate.
Questions about this distinction have attracted attention following the judgment in Damons N.O. and Another v Bezuidenhout. Some commentary has presented the case as giving people who are not practising legal practitioners broad permission to provide legal services for payment.
In a notice dated 15 October 2026, the Legal Practice Council (LPC) cautioned against that interpretation. For anyone seeking legal assistance, the case highlights the importance of understanding who is handling your matter, what they are authorised to do and which protections apply.
What was the Damons case about?
The case arose from an application by a company’s liquidators to have certain payments to a consultant declared void. The consultant was a former advocate whose name had been removed from the roll in 2011. He had been engaged to provide advice and prepare draft documents.
According to the LPC’s account of the judgment, he disclosed from the outset that he was no longer on the roll. Both the company’s director and its attorney knew his status, and the company remained represented by a practising attorney.
The court dismissed the application. It found that the consultant had not contravened section 33 of the Legal Practice Act in the circumstances: he had not presented himself as a legal practitioner and was not employed or otherwise engaged in the attorney’s practice.
The court also distinguished between preparing draft documents and introducing documents into legal proceedings. Its interpretation was that a document became “intended for use” in proceedings at the stage of its formal introduction, for example when an affidavit was sworn or a pleading signed by an attorney.
Why the judgment is not blanket permission to practise law
The LPC’s central concern is that the outcome has been interpreted more broadly than the case supports. The court considered a particular arrangement involving disclosure of the consultant’s status and the continued involvement of a practising attorney.
It did not grant law graduates, paralegals or legal consultants a general right to perform all legal work for paying clients. Nor did it decide that they could undertake work reserved for conveyancers and notaries, appear for payment where representation is restricted to legal practitioners, or handle legal trust money.
The LPC also points out that this was a judgment by a single High Court judge, rather than the Supreme Court of Appeal or Constitutional Court. It should therefore not be presented as having finally settled the interpretation of section 33 for every court.
What section 33 of the Legal Practice Act says
Section 33 regulates who may perform certain legal services. It restricts paid appearances in forums where only legal practitioners may appear, as well as the preparation or execution of documents relating to, required for or intended for use in civil or criminal court proceedings.
It also prohibits people who are not legal practitioners from presenting themselves as such. Work reserved under other legislation for attorneys, advocates, conveyancers or notaries remains restricted to appropriately authorised practitioners.
Contravening section 33 is a criminal offence. Under section 93(2), a conviction can result in a fine, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.
The practical issue is the service being offered and the provider’s authority to perform it. Calling a service “consulting” does not, by itself, resolve those questions.
Why professional registration matters to clients
Choosing a practising legal practitioner gives clients access to a system of professional accountability. Practitioners are admitted by the High Court, enrolled with the LPC and subject to professional conduct requirements and disciplinary processes.
The LPC’s notice warns that these particular protections do not extend to services provided by someone who is not admitted and enrolled, however knowledgeable or experienced that person may be.
Money also requires careful attention. The notice specifically cautions that money entrusted to an unadmitted person is not protected by the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund. Clients should not assume that someone describing themselves as a legal consultant has the same authority to receive money, or offers the same safeguards, as a regulated legal practice.
An attorney’s signature carries responsibility
The notice also addresses legal practitioners who sign documents prepared by others. A practitioner who signs and files a document takes professional responsibility for its contents, regardless of who prepared the initial draft.
For clients, this means that the attorney’s involvement should be substantive. The LPC warns against practitioners lending their names or signatures to arrangements that allow reserved work to be carried out outside the Act.
The notice further confirms that struck-off or suspended practitioners remain subject to restrictions. Their employment or engagement in a legal practice requires the Council’s prior written consent, and describing an arrangement as a consultancy will not determine its true legal character.
What to check before appointing someone
Before paying for legal assistance, ask whether the person is currently admitted and enrolled as a practising legal practitioner. If their status is unclear, the LPC’s provincial offices can assist with enquiries.
You should also establish who will take responsibility for your matter, who will sign any court documents and who will represent you if proceedings become necessary. Where money will be held on your behalf, confirm the applicable trust-account arrangements and Fidelity Fund certificate requirements.
A professional title, legal qualification or history of working in the legal sector should not replace these checks. Understanding the provider’s status at the beginning can help you make a more informed decision about the assistance you need.
The Damons judgment raises important questions about the boundaries of legal consulting, but the LPC’s message to the public is clear: the existing statutory restrictions remain in force. Before entrusting someone with your legal affairs, establish both their authority to do the work and their accountability for it.
For guidance on a legal matter, contact Pagel Schulenburg to discuss your circumstances and the appropriate next steps.
