‘He says, she says’ costs lawyers jobs
● An acrimonious divorce between two lawyers has not only aired their dirty laundry, it has cost them their robes.
Yolandi Hewetson, from Welkom in the Free State, is fighting to save her 19-year career after the High Court in Bloemfontein struck her and her former husband, Alexander Hewetson, off the roll of attorneys for dipping into trust funds to the tune of more than R7-million.
An audit revealed that the couple, who were co-directors of Hewetson Incorporated, bought furniture and property and paid staff salaries from the trust funds.
At the height of their marital conflict in January 2015, Hewetson reported her husband to the Law Society of the Free State for misusing just over R1.7-million.
She distanced herself from the financial mess, but auditors appointed by the law society found she had received loans of up to R300 000 from the trust fund.
The auditors concluded that transactions involving more than R7.4-million were not supported by any documentation.
The society hauled the Hewetsons to court to have them barred from practising, and Alexander admitted guilt. Yolandi challenged the striking off — but the court was unsympathetic in its December judgment.
“It appears that [Yolandi] was content that her monthly living expenses were met from the coffers of [the law firm] without even paying lip service to the origin of such funds,” said Judge Mpina Mathebula.
“It is inconceivable that an attorney will act in such a reckless manner. At best it is dereliction of duty. It was under her watch that numerous acts of misconduct which were dishonest and fraudulent in nature were perpetrated.”
The court found Yolandi also “operated on the very same trust account by authorising some payments through electronic fund transfers or cheques”.
“She was also a party to the massive dishonesty schemes perpetrated by [her former husband]. This lame excuse cannot avail [her].”
According to the judgment, which Yolandi will appeal, the funds of creditor Ahmed Nabil were misused by Yolandi, a clear indication that she condoned her ex-husband’s actions. The court found it was only when the marriage soured and “the magnitude of the damage was unmanageable” that she reported the irregularities.