In a move that should have come much sooner, Business Live reports that Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) has backed down from its attempt to interdict the Legal Sector Code (LSC)(the Code), a policy designed to ensure greater transformation and equity within South Africa’s legal profession.
In a move that speaks volumes about the evolving dynamics of South Africa’s legal landscape, it would appear that NRF has withdrawn its bid to interdict the newly implemented LSC — for now.
While this retreat might seem like a concession, it is, in fact, a positive shift for the legal profession.
After a case management meeting with the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Competition, the firm wisely agreed to forego its application for a provisional order suspending the code’s operation.
However, the fight is far from over, as NRF continues to challenge the code on constitutional grounds.
NRF’s Retreat: Mounting Pressure and the Backtrack on Legal Sector Code
The withdrawal demonstrates NRF’s recognition of the need for open engagement with the government and relevant stakeholders in the transformation process.
By opting to work with the Ministry, the firm has shown a willingness to discuss the practicalities of implementing the LSC and align its stance with the evolving demands of South Africa’s legal landscape.
However, it remains unclear whether the decision to back down resulted from a moment of self-reflection or a genuine change of heart, or if, as seems more likely, it was driven by mounting pressure from legal practitioners, lobbyist groups, journalists, publications, and the broader public.
One journalist, senior broadcaster Stephen Grootes, expressed genuine bewilderment at NRF’s stance, directly questioning senior partner Brent Botha: “Why are you so angry about this [Code]? What exactly is wrong with [the Code]? What’s unconstitutional about it, Brent?”
In a compelling must listen radio interview on Grootes’ The Money Show on 702, Grootes pressed for clarity, appearing incredulous at NRF’s resistance. Despite their firm opposition, Botha eventually seemed to backtrack, claiming that NRF “supports the adoption of a legal sector code” but simply wants to ensure the adopted code is “workable and lawful.”
Grootes, continuing his questioning, pointed out that the Code would require law firms to have more black people in ownership, as well as younger individuals and those from rural areas. He queried whether the real concern was that the Code would challenge the long-standing practices of NRF.
Botha responded affirmatively, acknowledging that meeting the targets for black ownership would take longer in practice than the Code envisaged. He further noted that NRF had made submissions prior to filing the application, but they did not get the chance to consult with the drafters of the LSC, believing their submissions were rejected at a subcommittee level.
Despite NRF’s initial stance, which seemed out of touch with the country’s post-apartheid realities, the withdrawal of the interdict, along with an expedited hearing for the main review application, offers a potential opening for more meaningful dialogue on the future of the legal profession.
Challenging the Status Quo: The Battle Over Transformation
NRF’s opposition to the LSC was rooted in claims that the targets set by the code—50% black ownership, management, and voting rights—are unrealistic for large law firms. However, this view overlooked the reality of the profound racial and economic imbalances within South Africa’s legal profession.
For decades, the dominance of white-owned firms has perpetuated inequality, and the LSC represents a necessary step toward correcting this.
NRF’s challenge to the code reflected a preference for maintaining the status quo, but their decision to engage with the government on this issue is a welcomed shift.
The Importance of Inclusivity and Practicality
NRF’s position, as articulated in their court papers, highlighted concerns over the unworkability of the code and the potential negative impact on the firm’s ability to attract clients and secure work from the state.
While these concerns are valid, they are not insurmountable. The LSC aims to create a more inclusive legal sector by ensuring that black practitioners have access to meaningful opportunities, ownership, and management positions.
It is clear that while the code needs refining, it must remain rooted in the principles of equity and fairness, ensuring that South Africa’s legal landscape evolves in a manner that reflects the democratic values of the country.
A Step Forward, But The Fight Continues
NRF’s withdrawal of the interdict application is a positive move that signals a willingness to engage with the government and other stakeholders on the future of the Legal Sector Code.
However, the firm’s broader challenge against the code is ongoing, and it remains to be seen whether the final version of the LSC will address NRF’s concerns while ensuring meaningful transformation in the legal sector.
This case highlights the need for ongoing dialogue, constructive criticism, and a commitment to transformation, particularly in an industry that has long been dominated by structural inequalities.
As South Africa continues to grapple with its history of apartheid-era imbalances, the legal profession must play its part in building a more inclusive and equitable society.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT’S HALTING OF THEIR APPLICATION OPPOSING THE CODE?
Let us know by leaving a comment below or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website’s newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
