The importance of addressing mental health matters in the legal profession has been widely covered in recent years.

Anna Newport (‘Hormonal imbalance – the silent predator’ (2025) Law Society Gazette 22) observes that: 

‘Lawyers are a tough breed. Trained to preserve, never admit weakness and handle pressure with an air of quiet authority, the profession prides itself on resilience. …

For all its bravado, the legal profession is waking up to the importance of mental health.’

Practitioners facing, or suspecting, mental health challenges are urged to seek the appropriate assistance as soon as possible and to be supportive of others who may be facing such circumstances. If left untreated, mental health challenges can have a serious impact on the lives of the affected individuals, those around them and their practices. Chronic fatigue, an inability to cope with the demands of running a practice or failing to give matters the appropriate attention are just some possible symptoms of deeper underlying mental health problems.

This article covers four judgments where depression on the part of the practitioners concerned was considered. For current purposes, the focus is only on that aspect of the cases. Details of the offending conduct in each case are set out in the respective judgments. The first two cases relate to unsuccessful re-admissions applications by struck-off attorneys, and the last two are applications by the Legal Practice Council (LPC) to strike practitioners off the roll. I have not been able to find South African cases where, for example, practitioners facing criminal charges for the theft of trust monies have raised mental health issues either in raising a diminished (or impaired) criminal capacity defence, or in mitigation of sentence.

Jelal v Legal Practice Council

In Jelal v South African Legal Practice Council (KZP) (unreported case no 2367/2019P, 19-1-2022) (Mngadi J (Olsen J concurring)), the applicant had been struck off the roll of attorneys. She launched an application seeking re-admission. Her contention was that, since committing the offending conduct that led to the striking off, she had been rehabilitated and was now a fit and proper person to be re-admitted to practice as an attorney. The LPC did not oppose her application.

The allegations placed before the court in respect of the applicant’s mental health (at paras 14 and 15) were that –

• she ‘crumbled emotionally’ and suffered from depression following the sudden death of her mother, with whom she had an extremely close relationship, in 2002;
• as a result, she neglected her duties as an attorney. This resulted in complaints against her to the then KwaZulu-Natal Law Society, a failure to respond to correspondence relating to those complaints, and a failure to properly attend to her practice;
• she had attempted suicide on ten occasions;
• after deciding to remedy her situation in 2004, she consulted a psychiatrist, was admitted as an in-patient for two weeks, and continued with the treatment until February 2005. At that stage, the psychiatrist advised her that she was fully recovered; and
• the treatment had assisted her to be more rational, emotionally stable, focussed, find herself religiously and spiritually, erase the thoughts of suicide and she had ‘[regained] her zest for life and the ability to interact with both [the] successes and challenges in life’.

A report by a psychologist who had first consulted with the applicant in 2019 was attached to the court papers. The psychologist’s reason for seeing the applicant, according to the report, ‘was to assess her degree of depression (if any) to understand if her previous trauma [was] affecting her ability to make effective decisions and to evaluate whether she was eligible to be reinstated as a practising attorney’. The report concluded that, in the psychologist’s assessment of the applicant in 2019 and 2021, she was not depressed and had no other psychological issues that could affect her duties as an attorney. The psychologist also concluded that there was nothing wrong with the applicant when she saw her. The report made no mention of the applicant having received psychological or psychiatric treatment in 2002 or 2003.

The court (at para 14) found the psychologist’s report unhelpful in explaining what caused the applicant to carry out the offending conduct central to the case. The court noted that ‘there is no report by any expert attributing the conduct of the applicant to any extraneous factors at any point in time.’

Maartens v Legal Practice Council

In Maartens v South African Legal Practice Council (GP) (unreported case no 19239/2022, 4-6-2024) (Matthys AJ (Mooki J concurring)), the applicant’s case was that she was raised in an impoverished background, experienced emotional abuse by her parents since childhood and her life goal was to obtain a professional qualification to escape those difficult circumstances. She alleged that, in later years, her husband’s death left her depressed and despondent. In the aftermath thereof, she claimed to have received psychiatric treatment and been prescribed strong antidepressants and tranquilisers. However, in her affidavits she gave conflicting versions of her husband’s death. In one version she alleged that he had died of unknown causes. In another, she alleged that he was shot and killed in her presence in their home and that she was also seriously injured in the incident. Her explanation for the two conflicting versions was an inability to face the trauma and shock of the events leading to her husband’s death.

The court (at para 15) found no evidence to support the alleged depression suffered and treatment received. The applicant had alleged that her depressed psychological condition was the reason for her inability to attend to her clients matters with the requisite care and professionalism.  

Legal Practice Council v Halles

In South African Legal Practice Council v Halles and Another (GP) (unreported case no 35117/2022, 5-6-2024) (Davis J, Mooki J and Matthys AJ), the LPC launched a two-pronged application against the practitioner concerned. The first part concerned an application to suspend her from practising, and the second (the subject matter of the judgment) was an application to strike her name from the roll of legal practitioners.

Having faced a series of events which affected her personally, and in her professional ability to properly conduct her practice, the practitioner was referred (by her former principal) to, and consulted with, a psychiatrist who produced a report that was placed before the court. The report was tendered in evidence by agreement between the parties. The psychiatrist’s report, inter alia, noted that –

• having assessed the practitioner’s psychological and emotional state, he diagnosed her as suffering from Major Depressive Disorder and that the condition was self-evident at his first consultation with her;
• the ‘career-impeding effects of the COVID-19 pandemic’ affected the practitioner’s intended career trajectory and, as her depression worsened, she became more detached from the reality of her work and financial position to the extent of becoming bed-bound;
• this detachment from reality was a common feature of the condition the practitioner suffered from and could, in extreme cases, lead to a loss of the will to live; and
• he was confident that she, with guidance and a balanced lifestyle, would make a full recovery and be able to resume her profession.

The practitioner stated that she continued to suffer from the same depressive symptoms despite using the medication prescribed by the psychiatrist. She then consulted with a Clinical and Neuropsychologist. The Clinical and Neuropsychologist also provided a report confirming the diagnosis made by the psychiatrist.

After considering the applicable law and the facts placed before it, the court concluded that a suspension, rather than a striking off, was an appropriate sanction in these circumstances.

The court, importantly, observed that:

‘[22] …, legal practitioners are more than anything else, human beings. The pressure demands associated with the practice of law, including the maintenance of the [personae] of a fit and proper person, worthy of the profession, should not be underrated.

[23] Compounded by a range of personal life stressors, which any lawyer may face, competing interests may take its toll on the physical and or mental well-being of a [practitioner]. I considered that stress is a subjective experience. Different people may react differently to a single stressful situation. In some [instances], the impact of stressors may become overwhelming to the person, who may not have the knowledge and skill to identify the symptoms, of a possible psychological breakdown. In the context of the emotional and psychological well-being of legal [practitioners], the use of terms such as “burnout”, stressed, depressed or “Professional Paralysis” are not uncommon.

[24] Further, the eminence, in which members of the legal profession are generally viewed, inevitably comes with societal stigmatization under circumstances where practitioners do not live up to [a] standard, albeit due to psychological ill health. Logically, the stigma surrounding mental health conditions suffered by legal professionals, adds to anxiety and depression. Therefore, a practitioner may not feel free to disclose for open discussion feelings manifesting depression, nor to take time off, dreading judgement from colleagues or clients.

[25] There can be no doubt that in the context of the fit and proper requirement, mental health issues suffered by legal practitioners are of great consequence. Legal [practitioners] (as all persons) with a mental illness or who are being treated as such persons, are required to be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. For these reasons, there is a need for greater attention and understanding from within the legal profession at large, about mental health issues.’ 

Legal Practice Council v Gonzales

In South African Legal Practice Council v Gonzales (WCC) (unreported case no 1949/2024, 6-12-2024) (Cloete J), the court considered the practitioner’s relatively young age, the fact that he suffered from severe depression, which he had now taken steps to address, his plea for a second chance in the form of suspension rather than a striking, the fact that he had a family to support and two character references as mitigating factors. However, the court was unpersuaded that the practitioner truly appreciated his character defects and there was no reassurance that he would act in accordance with that appreciation in future. The fact that he continued being a threat to any potential client, his track record of maladministration, and the fact that he had brought the profession into disrepute were factors considered in the decision to strike the practitioner’s name from the roll of attorneys rather than suspend him as he had suggested. He had not placed appropriate conditions for a suspension before the court.

In Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Stoltz and Another (GP) (unreported case no 7184/2018, 15-8-2019) (Mavundla J and Makhubele J), claims by a practitioner that he was ‘totally overworked, depressed and under immense pressure’ (paras 37 and 49) were not enough to avoid the ultimate sanction, having his name removed from the roll of practitioners.

Conclusion

In time we will see whether mental health issues facing practitioners are raised in future cases and how the jurisprudence on that point will develop. Each case will be decided on its own facts. Practitioners raising mental health issues in proceedings by, or against them, will have to take the courts into their confidence, provide a candid explanation of their conditions supported by the reports from medical experts. Measures will have to be implemented in appropriate cases to protect the identity and dignity of those involved and to guard against the wide distribution of reports with deeply personal accounts of traumatic events that the affected persons may have been subjected to. A failure to take such measures may lead to a reluctance to place traumatic events on record in litigation conducted in public and court files that are relatively easily accessible. The interests of clients and other affected parties will also have to be considered. Mental health issues cannot be raised as an afterthought, where they did not exist or as a general panacea to absolve practitioners of all responsibility for breaches of their professional obligations.

A continued focus on mental health, encouraging affected people to seek early intervention and destigmatisation are important.

Anna Newton’s article concludes with the following sage advice:

‘Take steps to address your health – whether that means seeking medical advice, exploring support systems or simply starting an honest conversation. In a profession that demands so much, maintaining wellbeing is not just a personal responsibility, it is a professional imperative. A sharp mind and resilient body are the cornerstones of effective practice – do not allow silent challenges to compromise them.’

Thomas Harban BA LLB (Wits) is the General Manager of the Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC in Centurion.

This article was first published in De Rebus in 2025 (March) DR 8.