NADEL MEDIA STATEMENT ON ADV CRAIG WATT-PRINGLE SC CRITICISM OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE ACT IN THE ADVOCATE MAGAZINE ARTICLE

1 October 2022

In an article announcing his vacation as Chairperson of the General Council of the Bar (“GCB”), Adv Craig Watt-Pringle SC expressed strong comments regarding the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 (“the LPA”) and the legal profession. The article is found in the third segment of the ‘Advocate’ magazine published in August 2022, and it is entitled ‘Adieu’.

It is important to note that at the time when the article was authored, Adv Watt-Pringle occupied (and still does occupy) an important seat in the legal profession: Council member in the Legal Practice Council (“the LPA”).

Adv Watt-Pringle criticises the LPA for ‘lumping’ together of Advocates and Attorneys under one legislative regime, the inferior nature of the LPC’s training for advocates and that the profession’s ethical standards are slipping since the introduction of the LPA. It is disheartening to see a Council member publicly declare his opposition to the core objectives of the LPA.

Although the wording of the article purports to tow a line of respect and dignity towards attorneys in particular, the only impression it gives and the overriding insinuation made, is that the practice of an Attorney is somewhat less refined because as he or she is not a Court Specialist or that they should not be considered in the same light. More scathing is the idea that the very advent of the LPA is a creation of political initiatives aimed specifically at deteriorating the practice of Counsel.

These comments, therefore, create serious doubt as to whether Adv Watt-Pringle can, or is willing to, assist the LPC with it statutory obligations of collectively regulating the profession and creating a seamless fusion of the profession.

The National Association of Democratic Lawyers “NADEL” President, Mr Mvuzo Notyesi noted that “Adv Watt-Pringle’s years of experience as an Advocate, as well as the roles he plays within the profession are not to be ignored when considering the scathing criticisms he has levelled against the regime regulating the profession and the conduct of its Members”. Notyesi further noted that “the comments are not only disparaging towards colleagues who are both Attorneys and Advocates, but it is quite simply a breach of his fiduciary and ethical duties towards the profession”.

NADEL’s stance on the article is that it carries an air of exclusionist and unconstructive criticism levelled from a point of privilege. This is more so considering that Adv Watt-Pringle joined the profession prior to the Constitution being enacted, and thus his vantage point appears anti-transformative in nature.

Whilst NADEL acknowledges and respects every individual’s freedom of expression, these comments are outweighed by his fiduciary duty to the LPC as a member of its Council, wherein Council members are required to adhere to the LPA, the Code and that he must act in the best interest of the Council.

It is also not befitting of Adv Watt-Pringle to publicly speak ill of the LPC’s work or against its primary aims and objectives, whilst being a sitting member of its Council.  His words constitutes a clear breach of his fiduciary duty and demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the principle of ultimate good faith, which he is mandated to exercise under the office he currently occupies.

Seemingly disguised as fair and balanced, Adv Watt-Pringle’s comments can also be characterised as one that falls short of the standard required of him. There is no reasonableness is levelling harsh criticism against one’s own profession in a manner that places it in disrepute. Such criticism is taken to be made in bad faith and is unreasonable.

The comments made by Adv Watt-Pringle put him in breach of clause 3.14, 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of the Code, in that the comments are insulting, demeaning and disparaging and are made in a manner which brings the legal profession into disrepute, is offensive, inappropriate, and constitute conduct which is in bad faith, unreasonable or unfair.

NADEL views his conduct in a serious light and holds the considered view that his conduct constitutes misconduct. It is crucial for our democratic legal society, that the clear divergent views do not result in a careless attack on the legal framework established by the LPA. In the event of such careless attack arising, as in the present case, it must be met with a clear message that a breach of a fiduciary obligation or ultimate good faith will be netted with summary action.

NADEL, therefore, calls for the immediate action against Adv Watt-Pringle from the LPC. We further request Adv Watt-Pringle resign from the LPC as there is a clear conflict between his personal views and his duties as Council member of the LPC.

Statement issued on behalf of the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (NADEL) by Adv Lizelle Haskins, Publicity Secretary, 1 October 2022

NOTE: Craig Watt-Pringle's response can be read here: