LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence’ against attorney Kaamilah Paulse

In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kaamilah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys.

Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Paulse represents his spouse.

Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs.

The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children.

In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoojee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal.

Casoojee's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal’s report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date.

The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoojee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse’s involvement in restricting Casoogee’s access to his children’s school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to “parental alienation”.

The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoojee’s company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse’s failure to address key concerns. 

''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,” the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021.

The LPC reaffirmed the duty of attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

“Attorneys should not approach each case as if it were a war between litigants,” the tribunal stated, citing Judge Peter Mabuse, who warned that court rules must not be used “as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party”.

The case underscores broader systemic issues.

Although South African law grants both parents equal rights and responsibilities, many fathers report feeling marginalised in the family law system.

“There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,” says family law expert  Adv Lesedi Mokoena. “But that is not the law, and it’s not always what’s in the best interests of the child.”

Casoojee, who is currently applying to the High Court to compel Paulse’s removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, asserts that his fight is about more than personal justice. “This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.”

On Thursday, Herold Gie Attorneys wrote to The Star, demanding that the paper not publish the story.

In the letter, the law firm said: “We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee.

''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse.

“Ms Paulse will, when the matter is heard by the Disciplinary Committee, be challenging the complaint,” the letter reads. 

The matter is now expected to head back to the High Court, where the future of his relationship with his children may finally be resolved.