The Legal Practice Council (LPC) has been ordered to admit an attorney after initially seeking to block her admission due to a plagiarism case during her university studies and her dismissal from a previous job for falling asleep during a night shift.
The LPC barred Malesela Sharlotte Sebatsana from being admitted after disclosing that during her fourth year, while studying her law degree at the North West University, she was charged with plagiarism in one of the assignments.
She also revealed that in 2016, while working for the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) as a medical technologist, she faced disciplinary charges because she fell asleep during night shift. She was subsequently dismissed in 2016.
In her application, at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, Sebatsana said she committed plagiarism when she was working on a group assignment in 2019.
She explained that the plagiarism charge arose because, due to a looming deadline, her group decided to divide the assignment: each member completed a different question, and then they exchanged answers, which led to the plagiarism allegations.
She pleaded guilty and took full accountability and as punishment, she had to forfeit the module involved. She had to register for one module the following semester in order to meet the LLB requirements.
She said that while working for the NHLS, she was also in law school, six months pregnant, and working night shifts, which contributed to her falling asleep on the job.
She admitted that sleeping on the job caused some critical work not to be done. However, she submitted that she was constantly requesting to be released from the night shift as she had to work 12 hours without a break.
She said that she learned from her mistake, apologised for her transgression and took full responsibility for the complications she caused her employer, especially because it involved the lives of other people.
In response to these disclosures, the Provisional Affairs Committee (PAC) of the LPC, required Sebatsana to appear before the council to determine whether she is a fit and proper to be admitted as an attorney. She was further requested to submit any documentation in relation to disciplinary matters.
Sebatsana complied with these requests and in April 2023, she provided detailed documents relating to her disciplinary hearing at the NHLS as well as a letter dated April 12, 2023 from the University.
This letter confirmed her conviction which followed on the entering into of a plea agreement with the university and indicated that Sebatsana had attended remedial programs as part of her sanction.
The university confirmed that she has never committed further misconduct and she was fully rehabilitated and confirmed that she is indeed a fit and proper person for purposes of her admission application
Having considered Sebatsana’s submissions the PAC recommended to the LPC that she be regarded as fit and proper to be admitted as a legal practitioner.
However, the LPC raised concerns that Sebatsana’s misconduct involved dishonesty and she showed lack of remorse for her actions with her previous employer because she even took the case to the CCMA.
The LPC asked Sebatsana to provide the council with a psychological report for further consideration.
She complied with the requirement and having considered the psychological report, the LPC noted that it was not favourable, in that the psychologist expressed the view that although the she was indeed a fit and proper person who could be admitted to practice, she should be monitored for a period of 12 months.
The LPC requested Sebatsana to withdraw the admission application and consider bringing an admission application after a year and that application be supported by a new psychological report.
However, Sebatsana with the strength of the recommendation of the PAC in her favour, decided to proceed with her admission application.
Acting judge JP Voster and judge Elmarie van Der Schyff presided over the matter said the LPC is a guardian of morals towards legal professionals, however, they have been unfair towards Sebatsana.
“In our opinion, the decision by the applicant (Sebatsana) to proceed with this application despite the views expressed by the LPC cannot, in all the circumstances, be faulted...In view of the foregoing we are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner,” read the judgment.
IOL News