The advocate who has asked too much and seeks redemption

Background: What Happened Over a Decade Ago
In 2009 a group of lawyers working on Road Accident Fund (RAF) cases started a questionable billing practice. They would take on several cases for the same day and then charge the RAF as if each case had gone to trial, even though most matters were settled out of court. A circular had warned the profession against this, but the habit continued.

The Case of French Bezuidenhout
French Bezuidenhout had been a lawyer for 25 years. Unlike many of his peers who admitted guilt early, he maintained his innocence and fought the allegations.

• Scale of the Overcharging
  From February to November 2009 Bezuidenhout billed the RAF for trial work that never happened in 615 cases. The total amount inflated was more than R5.9 million.

• Disciplinary Action
  The Pretoria Bar Association’s Ethics Committee brought 819 misconduct charges against him. While 12 colleagues pleaded guilty and kept their licences, Bezuidenhout took a hard line, arguing his actions were allowed under the Johannesburg Bar Rules. The committee found his conduct especially serious and removed him from the roll of attorneys.

Attempts to Return to Practice
Thirteen years later, in early 2024, Bezuidenhout applied to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to be readmitted as a lawyer.

• The Judges’ View
  Judges Jan Swanepoel and a colleague examined his application. They acknowledged his claim of remorse but stressed that words alone are not enough.

  “However, words are just words.” – Judge Swanepoel

  The judge pointed out a contradictory statement Bezuidenhout made: he said he never charged for hours he didn’t work, yet the evidence showed he billed for trial fees on days when no trial occurred.

• Why the Application Was Denied
  1. Lack of Genuine Remorse – He did not fully disclose the extent of his overcharging.
  2. Failure to Grasp Seriousness – He justified his behavior instead of acknowledging the harm caused to the RAF and public trust.
  3. Obstructive Attitude – During the original disciplinary process he was described as obstructive, which raised doubts about his willingness to change.

What the Judges Looked For
When deciding on readmission, the court asked:

• How can we measure a person’s character?
• Does the applicant show true insight into past wrongdoing?
• Has he taken concrete steps to make amends?

Bezuidenhout’s answers fell short on these points.

Lessons for Young Lawyers (and Everyone)

• Honesty Matters – Inflating bills or double‑billing is not just a rule breach; it erodes trust in the legal system.
• Own Your Mistakes – Admitting fault early can lead to lighter penalties and a clearer path to redemption.
• Remorse Is Shown by Actions – Saying you’re sorry helps, but proving change through transparent behavior is what courts and clients really look for.
• Follow Professional Guidelines – Circulars and ethics rules exist to protect the public; ignoring them can end a career.

Conclusion
French Bezuidenhout’s story is a reminder that shortcuts and dishonest billing can have long‑lasting consequences. Fourteen years after the misconduct, the courts still found him unfit to practice because he failed to demonstrate true remorse and a clear understanding of why his actions were wrong. For anyone entering the legal profession—or any field that relies on integrity—the takeaway is simple: honesty, accountability, and genuine change are the only ways to build a lasting, respected career.