The Legal Practice Council (LPC) has dismissed two professional misconduct charges against attorney Kaamilah Paulse, but the complainant, Asif Casoojee, is seeking to overturn the outcome through an appeal, arguing he was not afforded a fair opportunity to participate in the disciplinary process.

The charges arose from Paulse's involvement in litigation concerning Casoojee and her representation of his estranged wife, identified in the LPC ruling as Ms Latief, IoL reports.

The first charge centred on a protection order obtained by Paulse against Casoojee in her personal capacity under the Protection from Harassment Act.

The LPC had alleged that she obtained a final protection order in September 2023 without disclosing that the interim order had not been properly served. It was further alleged that she continued to enforce the order after concerns about service had been raised and after being provided with rescission papers.

She is also alleged to have misled the LPC in February 2024 by stating that no rescission application had been launched. 

In a judgment delivered on 1 October, the disciplinary committee chaired by MI Higgins, dismissed the charge in its entirety.

The committee noted that the prosecutor had ultimately conceded that none of the allegations had been established by the evidence. The ruling found that the magistrate who granted the final protection order had authorised service by email and expressly recorded that proper service had taken place.

The committee held that Paulse was entitled to rely on the court's order, particularly as correspondence challenging service was unsupported by evidence such as a sheriff's return.

On the question of the rescission application, the committee found that the documents delivered to Paulse in December 2023 were unstamped, unissued and lacked a case number or hearing date.

It concluded that Paulse genuinely believed no rescission application had been formally launched when she responded to the LPC.

The committee also took account of the broader context of prolonged and highly contentious litigation between the parties. 

It recorded evidence that Paulse and her minor child had been subjected to threats, including threats of sexual violence, which prompted her to seek protection in her personal capacity, says IoL.

The second charge arose from proceedings in the Randburg Magistrate's Court in May 2025. Paulse was accused of incorrectly informing counsel that an earlier protection order application in Cape Town had been dismissed because Latief had relocated, when in fact the application had been dismissed on its merits.

While the committee accepted that the information conveyed was inaccurate, it found no evidence that Paulse intended to mislead the court. The error was challenged immediately during proceedings, and the magistrate required the parties to produce the written judgment rather than rely on oral submissions.

The committee noted that Paulse subsequently arranged for an expedited transcript of the Cape Town judgment and filed it before the court delivered its decision.

It held that her conduct demonstrated an effort to ensure the court was not misled.

Describing the incident as a lapse in diligence rather than professional misconduct, the committee found that the mistake had been corrected before any judicial decision was made on the disputed issue.

It therefore rejected arguments that her conduct had brought the legal profession into disrepute. The committee dismissed both charges, imposed no sanction and ordered each party to pay its own costs. 

Full IoL report