UNISA launches investigation into Adv de Ru over unauthorised paid legal work
UNISA confirms outside remunerative work requires approval but has no record of approval for for its Mercantile Law senior lecturer.
A non-practising Advocate, Henriet de Ru allegedly collected legal fees from the Public. (Image: Unisa)
The University of South Africa has told this publication that it never approved Advocate Henriet de Ru's outside paid legal work, with no record of such approval on file.
De Ru's six years of paid legal work for a Germiston body corporate is now the subject of a misconduct complaint before the Legal Practice Council,(LPC).
That is the university's formal response to written questions from The Public Dispatch, issued by Professor BB Senokoane, Executive Director: Institutional Advancement and university spokesperson.
UNISA confirmed that De Ru remains employed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Mercantile Law. Asked about its policy on outside remunerative work by academic staff, the university said:
“Outside work is permitted, subject to approval."
Asked whether De Ru had applied for or been granted permission to perform private legal consulting for reward, Senokoane said:
"The College does not have a record of any approval. The College will investigate the matter and appropriate action will be taken in the event of a breach of policy," said Senokane.
Asked whether it wished to comment on the reputational implications of a member of its law faculty allegedly rendering legal services for reward without enrolment as a practising practitioner, Senokane said:
"The College reserves its rights to comment on this matter until investigations have been concluded,".
Senokoane also highlighted that De Ru’s employment never depended on admission.
“Admission was not an inherent requirement.”
LPC confirmed she is an advocate
The LPC confirmed that De Ru was admitted as an advocate in 2008 and is enrolled as non-practising, a status which, in the Council's own words, means she "cannot offer legal services and receive payments for rendering legal services to the public.”
She has never held a Fidelity Fund certificate, which is generally required for an advocate to accept fees directly from members of the public.
Documents seen by The Public Dispatch show that between January 2020 and February 2026, De Ru signed demand correspondence to individual Sunbird Village homeowners under the description "Advocate of the High Court of South Africa, Legal Counsel and Legal Adviser."
The letters threaten legal action in terms of section 56 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, warn of electricity reductions with associated costs debited to owners' accounts, invite owners to conclude payment arrangements with her personally, and direct that proof of payment be sent to her personal email address.
Her signature changed over time. Letters sent in 2020 and 2021 carried her full designation, together with her cum laude law qualifications.
A written evidence submission to the LPC under reference 4384/2026, signed by approximately 29 homeowners, records that trustees confirmed at the body corporate's annual general meeting of 13 June 2026 that monthly legal fees are paid to De Ru.
According to the homeowners, they have never received detailed invoices or an explanation of the services for which the monthly legal fees are charged. Their submission also expands on an earlier complaint alleging that De Ru instructed a caretaker to disconnect the electricity supply of a new homeowner without a court order, despite the owner claiming she had paid her levies every month since taking transfer.
"I have been advised not to respond"
The Public Dispatch put detailed questions to De Ru:
- In what capacity she acts for the body corporate,
- Whether and how much she is paid,
- On what basis she signed public demands as an advocate of the High Court while enrolled as non-practising,
- Whether she instructed the disconnection, and
- Whether she is registered as a debt collector under the Debt Collectors Act.
De Ru initially indicated, that attorneys Jukes Inc,her attorneys of record would respond in writing. Days later, she advised that no response would be forth coming.
"The complaint is currently before the LPC. I have been advised not to respond. It is crucial that we afford the disciplinary committee of the LPC to deal objectively with the matter," she wrote.
She is entitled to that position, and it is recorded here in full.
It should be noted that no court or regulatory body has made any finding against De Ru. Whether her conduct amounts to what the Legal Practice Council has described as misrepresentation will be determined through the Council's disciplinary process and, if the matter is referred, the criminal justice system..