Conveyancers register transactions involving large sums of money, represented by undertakings exchanged on trust. Mutual trust grounded in the highest ethical standards of professionalism and honesty is so fundamental to conveyancing that the process will disintegrate if these standards are not maintained.The fact that a very small number of conveyancing matters end up in litigation is proof of the efficiency of the current system.

The general public, business and all public sectors rely on the accuracy of the registration system, where the input of the conveyancer is of vital importance. Apart from duties towards the parties involved in the transaction, the conveyancer has a duty towards the State and to the public to ensure that no incorrect or misleading information is recorded or perpetuated in the Deeds Office. The conveyancer is obliged to point out any error or change in information for recording, even if this may result in a delay to registration. In this respect, the duties of the conveyancer, with professional obligations, override the interests of a client, who may feel that such aspects should be overlooked if the registration can be achieved sooner or at lower cost. For example, a conveyancer attending to a transfer is obliged to advise a colleague attending to the bond if he/ she, at any stage, becomes aware of an addendum that may adversely affect the price or the property rights, from the perspective of the bondholder. It is not sufficient to argue that the information need only be divulged if specifically requested by the other conveyancer.

"Dummy transactions'", "shortcuts" to achieve faster registration or the eliciting of information from another party,who would not otherwise divulge same, amounts to unprofessional conduct. For example, a conveyancer requests figures for the cancellation of a bond from a bank on the basis of a fictitious transfer, well knowing that legal steps to recover arrear bond instalments will be suspended because the bank is under the impression that the bond is about to be repaid.Another example, the conveyancer becomes aware that a property transaction is not genuine and is intended to hide assets from creditors or to frustrate pending litigation. No conveyancer may be a knowing party to such a transaction.

Conveyancers have a particular duty of care when dealing with clients at less than arms length, for example, where the conveyancer is party to the contract, registers a bond or will receive commission or some other benefit, directly or indirectly arising from the transaction. Complaints are unlikely to arise if any such benefit or interest is disclosed to all interested parties at the earliest opportunity. Another example, the practice of conveyancers registering bonds in favour of themselves has become widespread but remains risky. The conveyancer must be aware that such a transaction is particularly vulnerable to allegations of a conflict of interest or failure to protect the interests of the other party.If the conveyancer cannot find it in his heart to refer such a transaction to a colleague, prudent practice would dictate that a colleague be requested to supervise the transaction in order to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seento be done.

1.2 Purchasing of Work

The purchasing of work is undoubtedly the worst problem that conveyancers have faced in the past decade. It is unprofessional and unacceptable for a practitioner to reward third parties for the referral of instructions. The attorney who is party to a transaction where the agent or bank manager receives a benefit, not disclosed to the seller or purchaser,may well be guilty of purchasing work. The independence of the practitioner is undermined when the conveyancer becomes beholden to the agent and accepts instructions from him/ her, to the prejudice of the client,whose interests are not then protected.The independence of the practitioner is of paramount importance and in the public interest.A practitioner found guilty of purchasing work will be disciplined. The payment by an attorney to a non professional person of a portion of the professional fee, that constitutes fee-sharing, is prohibited.Apart from all other considerations, the purchasing of work falls within the ambit of the Corruption Act and the attorney, agent or other facilitator involved in purchasing work should expect no mercy from the courts if such matters are brought before them.A result of this practice has been that many are now convinced that conveyancers make excessive profit and should be squeezed to the limit to extract the biggest possible advantage from the referral of instructions. The purchasing of work has undermined the profession so seriously that it may result in the loss of conveyancing as work reserved to practising attorneys.Such a move is likely to enjoy support from a public who feels that it cannot trust corrupt practitioners who associate themselves with corrupt agents and officials.
There should be no doubt that such conduct is unprofessional and not in the public interest and the Society will deal harshly with any practitioner found guilty of buying instructions, either directly or indirectly. The buying of instructions means a payment in cash or in kind made to an intermediary or agent, either directly or indirectly,in order to solicit or procure the referral of work. The buying of work can also be achieved by the giving of a financial inducement to the intermediary. Financial inducements may take many forms such as:-

i) Soft loans and prepayment of agents commission.
ii) The payment of a portion of the advertising costs of an agent or mortgage originator.
iii) The payment of travel expenses of an agent.
iv) The grant of excessive sponsorships or awards.
v) The payment of business expenses incurred by the agent such as rental,telephone or computer hire.
vi) Lavish entertainment.
vii) The performing of legal services for no reward.


A distinction is drawn between an attorney, on the one hand, rendering legal services to a client for a reduced fee or for no reward and the attorney, on the other hand, performing such services for an intermediary who is able to refer work to the attorney.It is the latter activity which concerns the Law Society.

To remove any confusion on the question of shared costs for advertising, an attorney may not pay any expenses incurred by an estate agent or mortgage originator in advertising or promoting the services of the estate agent or mortgage originator.If the advertisement of an attorney appears on the same page of a publication as that of an estate agent or mortgage originator,the publisher must invoice the attorney for the attorney’s advertising costs and invoice separately the agent or mortgage originator for its advertising costs.

Your Council believes it important to draw members’ attention to the definition of commercial bribery laid down by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Extel Industrial (Pty) Ltd. and another versus Crown Mils (Pty) Ltd. 1998 (4) All SA 465 which has the following elements:-

i) a reward
ii) paid or promised
iii) by one party, the briber
iv) to another, the agent
v) who is able to exert influence over
vi) a third party, the principal
vii) with the intention that the agent
viii) should induce the principal
ix) without the latter’s knowledge and
x) for the direct or indirect benefit of the briber
xi) to enter into or maintain or alter a contractual relationship
xii) with the briber, his principal, associate or subordinate.

Members who have queries or concerns on whether any activities may contravene the Law Society Rules or Rulings are invited to submit such queries to the Law Society.