1.1 Introduction “Well adapted” and “appropriate”. These are synonyms that could essentially provide an outline for the frequently accepted term "fit and proper", which is used in various professions internationally. It is used to describe the assessment of an individuals' suitability for a specific occupation or privilege. Being a "fit and proper" person is seen as a very important aspect or requirement to show that a person is approved for the relevant job, a legal practitioner in this regard. It plays an integral role in the admission, removal and readmission of legal practitioners from the legal profession. The term “fit and proper” is difficult to describe and define, as it has no set definition and varies from profession to profession, …show more content…
These factors include the nature and seriousness of the act that led to the removal of the applicant, the explanation given by the applicant for such conduct, the time between the removal and the application for readmission and the effort made by the applicant to restore the harm that has been caused. The current case law provides us with the ability to see how the courts use their discretion regarding the merits of each case. Although the above pertains particularly to the Northern Province, it can be established, that although there is no set definition for the term “fit and proper”, other courts will relatively follow the same guidelines. These guidelines simply make it easier for other courts to follow. However, it should be borne in mind that these guidelines are flexible in nature and can be changed regarding the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. CHAPTER …show more content…
It preserves the legal profession, maintains justice and protects the public. The question arises regarding the extensive effort it takes to determine whether a person is actually "fit and proper", as identified in the readmission of attorneys to the roll. Particular reference is made to cases where attorneys have previously been struck off the roll because of disciplinary action taken up against them for their wrongdoings. Thus, it is essential to provide sufficient proof to the court and the rest of society as to why they should be deemed “fit and proper” once more. The court cannot predict whether or not an unethical, wrongful legal practitioner who has taken the necessary steps to reform themselves, will in future commit another offence if provided with a second chance. The legal profession should therefore constantly review legal practitioners to ensure that they conduct themselves to be “fit and proper” at all times, and not only when being reviewed for re-admission regarding a prior