Disgraced attorney, Heinrich Francisco Gonzales who was recently struck off the roll of attorneys had allegedly not only misappropriated trust monies but also attempted to mislead both the Legal Practice Council (LPC) and the court to evade responsibility.
The LPC launched its application against Gonzales on January 29 to have him suspended pending the outcome of the second part of the matter concerning his removal.
Several complaints were lodged against him from clients and a firm’s external accountant, related to the administration of trust funds.
During initial investigations, attempts by the curator to obtain Gonzales’s trust accounting records and client files had been unsuccessful; he had “advised the curator in April that his firm had been placed in provisional liquidation at the instance of a creditor”, court papers read.
Ultimately, the court dealt with two of the complaints which were substantial. One concerned a man who had enlisted Gonzales’s services for a maintenance matter.
In January, the man appointed Gonzales to assist him in a maintenance dispute with his former spouse. Gonzales apparently told him to pay the full amount of the maintenance arrears of R63320.24 into his trust account pending a round-table meeting which he would arrange with the man’s former spouse.
This money was paid on the same day together with R8000 required by Gonzales for a “consultation fee”.
In June 2022, the man paid a further R10000 to Gonzales at his request as a deposit for the proposed round-table meeting.
The meeting was never arranged and eventually the man settled the dispute directly with his former spouse, according to court documents.
However, when the man wanted a refund, Gonzales offered to repay this in four weekly instalments starting on June 5, 2023.
The client accepted this arrangement “since the respondent (Gonzales) told him that he did not have the funds in his trust account”.
Gonzales failed to make payment as agreed and did not respond to the client’s messages thereafter.
Quoting correspondence by Gonzales, he said it was “a temporary loan agreement between myself and the client”.
“Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, repayment of the amount took longer than anticipated.”
The court, however, noted that the dates concerning the “temporary loan agreement” did not correspond.
“By that date (the client’s) monies had already been transferred by the respondent without (the client’s) permission from his trust account to his business account and utilised by the respondent.
“This is theft of trust monies which is one of the most serious offences a legal practitioner can commit. It is made worse by the respondent’s patently false attempt to justify his conduct ex post facto.”
The R8000 and R10000 allocated to fees for work done could also not be justified as no statements were provided and besides an initial consultation, no other work was done.
In another complaint, the client said on November 23 and December 14, 2021, he made two deposits into Gonzales’s trust account of R38030.50 and R100000 respectively.
This was for Gonzales to represent him in the high court in a dispute pertaining to his late father’s estate. Despite repeated requests from February 1, March 29, and July 25, 2022, to account for the work done, Gonzales only provided an account on February 7, 2023.
According to Gonzales, R30000 from the R100000 was paid to his local Cape Town correspondent, but he failed to account for the remaining R70000.
While Gonzales pleaded for a second chance in the form of a suspension and annexed two references from individuals as to his alleged good character, Judge Judith Cloete ruled: “On careful consideration of the evidence I am unpersuaded that the respondent has a true appreciation of his character defects.
“That being the case, one cannot be reassured that he will in future act in accordance with such an appreciation. He has also not placed anything before the court to enable it to formulate appropriate conditions even if minded to impose a suspension.
“There is simply not enough to show that a suspension with attendant conditions will have the desired result. At present, the respondent is regrettably a threat to any potential client, given his track record of maladministration, but he has also brought the profession into disrepute. It is of the utmost importance that the public is able to rely on the trustworthiness and absolute integrity of members of the legal profession. The respondent’s name is struck from the rolls of attorneys.”
Gonzales’s office did not respond to requests for comment by deadline on Monday.
LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said: “The LPC welcomes the judgment handed down on this.
Cape Times