Even as per the complainant’s own admission, it is much thereafter that the complainant intended to sell the property in question when he found himself in need of money. It is this sale which the appellant tried to interdict. He was not doing so in the capacity of an Advocate. As per him, the complainant was not authorised to sell the property without repaying his debt...

Whether the appellant was right in this submission or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that this act has nothing to do with the professional conduct of the appellant...