​​​​​​- LSC review application in court 4-8 May 2026

- Firms to ask court to set aside LSC to develop a lawful, realistic code that advances and supports meaningful broad based transformation

Johannesburg, 29 April 2026 - Bowmans, Webber Wentzel and Werksmans argue that the Legal Sector Code (LSC) in its present form it is unlawful, unworkable, and risks undermining, rather than advancing, meaningful broad based transformation in the legal profession, harming the very people it is supposed to benefit.  These three firms will therefore ask the Gauteng High Court to set aside the LSC.

The LSC was published by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition on 20 September 2024. The firms have intervened in the legal proceedings initiated by Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) to review the LSC. The matter has been set down for hearing from 4 to 8 May in the Gauteng High Court.

In their heads of argument, the three firms make clear that they support meaningful, inclusive and sustainable transformation of the legal profession, both within their own firms and across the wider legal sector. Their case is that the current LSC is fundamentally misconceived in design and effect, and that it will hinder rather than advance meaningful broad-based transformation.

The LSC exempts more than 95% of legal practices from its requirements. According to the papers, legal entities with between one and three partners make up 95.07% of legal practices, yet the LSC does not apply to them because they fall below the turnover threshold for compliance. The firms argue that a code that applies to less than 5% of the profession cannot credibly transform the sector as a whole.

The firms argue that the defects in the LSC have real-world consequences for broad-based transformation. If the LSC is allowed to stand, those most likely to lose are the people and institutions that rely on practical, broad-based pathways into and through the legal sector, including black law students, young graduates, black professionals in management, persons with disabilities, and the public-interest organisations that expand access to justice.

At the heart of the problem, they say, is that the LSC removes recognition for several proven transformation mechanisms under the Generic Codes. These include bursaries for black students, skills development for employees and learners with disabilities, and socio-economic development contributions. The firms argue that these are not peripheral, but foundational to a functioning transformation pipeline: without investment in students, entry into the profession narrows; without support for disability-focused training, inclusion is set back; and without incentives for socio-economic contributions, organisations serving vulnerable communities, such as Probono.org and Black Sash, and the people who depend on them, are likely to be adversely affected.

The firms also challenge the LSC’s treatment of management and ownership. They argue that it wrongly excludes black non-lawyers from management control scoring, even though black non-lawyers (e.g. CFOs, IT, HR) serve in critical senior management and leadership roles in law firms. According to the papers, this rests on a legal error and undermines the achievement of affirmative action under the Constitution.

On ownership, the firms say the LSC imposes steep increases over a short time-frame that are not justified by the evidence before the Minister and are practically unachievable. The heads of argument note that the Technical Committee (which advised the Minister on the draft LSC) itself described a 5% increase every two years as reasonable, yet the final LSC adopted a 10% increase every two years. The firms argue that this is arbitrary, unsupported by proper empirical research, and risks forcing outcomes that are neither sustainable nor lawful.

The case also raises rule-of-law concerns. The guidelines governing the development of sector codes require that sector codes must cover all elements of the Generic Scorecard, and that any deviations must be properly justified based on sound economic principles, sectoral characteristics or empirical research.   The Ministry previously declined to promulgate the draft LSC, raising specific and substantive concerns, including whether several deviations from the Generic Codes were justified or supported by evidence. The Ministry has since changed its stance. The firms argue that these concerns were not properly addressed before the LSC was promulgated, and that in changing its stance, the Ministry failed to apply the level of scrutiny required before issuing a binding sector code with far-reaching legal and economic consequences.

Furthermore, the B-BBEE Act requires the Minister to issue a B-BBEE strategy to guide sector codes.  The firms note that no such valid strategy was issued in this case, meaning that the LSC was developed and promulgated without the necessary legal foundation.

Importantly, the firms are not asking the court to leave the profession without a transformation framework. Their proposed remedy is that the LSC be set aside and that the Generic Codes continue to apply to the legal sector while a lawful, evidence-based and properly constructed LSC is developed. In their view, that would avoid any regulatory vacuum while allowing the sector and government to produce a code that genuinely advances transformation.

Ezra Davids, Chairman and Senior Partner at Bowmans, speaking on behalf of all three firms, says: “We fully support meaningful transformation and believe that, when appropriately configured, the LSC can build on the significant work that has already been done to broaden transformation within the legal sector.  Our goal is to help shape a legal sector code that is evidence-based, practical, and inclusive and we are committed to working with Government and other stakeholders to achieve a solution that is in our country’s best interest.”

Prior to the introduction of the LSC, all three firms held a Level 1 B-BBEE rating under the Generic Codes, and have made substantial and measurable contributions to transformation. For example:

• Bowmans has maintained black ownership levels between 24.7% and 28.6% over the past decade, and in 2026, invested R292 million in black-owned suppliers.  Over the past 5 years, Bowmans has trained 195 black candidate attorneys and has spent more than R6 million on bursaries.  Currently, 55% of Bowmans South Africa’s lawyers are black, up from 46% five years ago.
• Webber Wentzel has increased the number of black partners from 25% in 2019 to 38% in 2026 and invested significant amounts in black empowered suppliers and black skills development. Over the last 6 years, Webber Wentzel has trained 211 black candidate attorneys, equipping them with the skills and experience to advance in the profession, and has spent more than R7.8 million (2019 - FY 2026) on bursaries.  59% of Webber Wentzel’s lawyers are black, an increase of 91% over the eleven years.
• Werksmans has increased black partner representation from 20% in 2019 to 31.25% in 2026, and in 2025, invested more than R48 million in black-owned suppliers and over R18 million in black professional development. Five years ago, black professionals made up 66% of junior lawyers; today, that figure has increased to 75%.

 Ends
 

Fact Sheet: Legal Sector Code Review Application

Bowmans, Webber Wentzel and Werksmans

Overview

Bowmans, Webber Wentzel and Werksmans have intervened in the legal proceedings initiated by Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) to review the B-BBEE Legal Sector Code of Good Practice (LSC).  The LSC was published on 20 September 2024.  The matter has been set down for hearing from 4 to 8 May in the Gauteng High Court.

The firms support meaningful, inclusive and sustainable transformation of the legal profession, and support the development of a sector-specific code. Their case is that the current LSC is unlawful, irrational and, in its present form, risks undermining rather than advancing broad-based transformation.

The review is based on a number of legal grounds set out in the firms’ heads of argument and in their affidavits.

Key grounds for review

1. Failure to properly consider prior ministerial concerns

The guidelines that set out the procedure and requirements for the development of any sector code dictate that it must fully address all elements in the Generic Scorecard. Deviations must be justified on sound economic principles, sectoral characteristics or empirical research.  The firms note that former Minister Ebrahim Patel declined to promulgate the draft Code, raising substantive concerns about whether key deviations from the Generic Codes were justified. These concerns were not properly addressed, yet the LSC was later promulgated by Minister Tau without sufficient scrutiny.  In the firms’ view, this points to a failure to apply the level of independent consideration required before issuing a binding sector code with significant legal and economic consequences.

2. Exclusion of more than 95% of the legal profession from the LSC

The LSC exempts more than 95% of legal practices in South Africa from the LSC because they fall below the turnover threshold for compliance.  The firms argue that a code that applies to less than 5% of the profession (large corporate law firms) cannot credibly transform the sector as a whole. They further contend that this removes incentives for transformation across the majority of firms.

3. Absence of a lawful B-BBEE strategy

The firms note that the B-BBEE Act requires the Minister to issue a B-BBEE strategy to guide sector codes.  They contend that no such strategy was issued in this case, meaning the LSC was developed and promulgated without the necessary legal foundation.

4. Cumulative effect undermines substantive equality

The firms argue that, taken together, the provisions of the LSC are self-defeating and undermine the constitutional objective of advancing substantive equality (s9(2) of the Constitution).  The LSC risks prejudicing the very groups it is intended to benefit by weakening key transformation mechanisms and narrowing access to opportunities.  Specifically, the LSC in its current form, excludes vital broad based transformation mechanisms, including:




a. bursaries for black students at higher education institutions,

b. skills development for black employees and learners with disabilities,

c. socio-economic development expenditure, and

d. the important contribution of black non-lawyers in management of law firms.

These are not peripheral matters, but part of the practical pipeline through which broad based transformation is built and sustained within a large law firm.

5. Ownership targets are not evidence-based or achievable

The firms argue that the ownership targets are arbitrary, unsupported by proper empirical evidence, and not practically achievable within the profession’s existing pipeline of legal professionals.  The Technical Committee (which advised the Minister on the draft LSC) itself indicated that a 5% increase every two years would be reasonable, yet the LSC imposes a 10% increase every two years for large firms without justification. This risks forcing outcomes that are neither sustainable nor lawful.

6.     Exclusion of black non-lawyers from management control

Unlike the Generic Codes, the LSC excludes black non-lawyer professionals (e.g., CFOs, IT, HR executives) from management control measurements, even though they play a critical role in the leadership, operations and transformation of large corporate law firms.  The firms argue that this is based on a legal error. This exclusion disregards meaningful transformation already taking place and produces distorted outcomes.




a. The three law firms collectively employ more than 866 non-lawyers in South Africa, with a range of professional qualifications and across various management positions.  Of the 184 non-lawyer managers, 100 (54.35%) are black non-lawyer managers, under the current Management Control measure of the Generic Scorecard.

7.     Removal of key skills development mechanisms

The LSC removes recognition for several forms of skills development, including bursaries for black students, training for persons with disabilities and vacation programmes under one month. The firms argue that these are central to building a sustainable transformation pipeline. Without these mechanisms, entry into the profession is narrowed and inclusion is set back.




a. The three firms employ 236 candidate attorneys between them, with black candidate attorneys making up more than 73%.

b. In the last financial year, the three firms collectively offered 52 bursaries to black law students and invested more than R4.5 million in this regard.

8.     Exclusion of socio-economic development (SED)

Socio-economic development (SED) is a key pillar of B-BBEE. However, the LSC removes SED from its measurement calculations, despite the Guidelines requiring that a proposed sector code “must fully address all the elements of the Generic Scorecard”. By excluding SED, which also ignores pro bono expenditure to NGOs such as Probono.org or Black Sash, the LSC overlooks a vital pillar of transformation that ensures opportunities extend beyond the law firms, and benefit a wider network of people, including black-owned businesses, aspiring lawyers, and vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.

9.     Treatment of advocate expenditure as law firm procurement

The LSC treats expenditure on advocates as procurement by law firms.  The firms argue that this is incorrect, as these disbursements are typically incurred on behalf of clients and are therefore not true procurement. They contend that this approach misrepresents firms’ actual contribution to transformation and departs from established B-BBEE principles. The three law firms collectively spend over R1 billion per year on procuring goods and services outside of advocate spend.  In FY26 alone, the three firms collectively spent close to R434 million on 51% black owned companies.

10. Regulation of state procurement through a sector code

The LSC introduces provisions that seek to regulate how state entities procure legal services.  The firms argue that this goes beyond the Minister’s powers under the B-BBEE Act and creates a conflicting regulatory framework with existing procurement legislation (Preferential Procurement Policy Framework (PPPFA).

Who stands to be affected

The firms argue that the impact of the LSC extends beyond large law firms. In their view, the removal of recognition for bursaries, disability-focused training, socio-economic development and inclusive management structures risks weakening the broader transformation pipeline.

Those most likely to be affected include black law students, young legal professionals, persons with disabilities, black professionals in management roles within law firms, public-interest organisations, and the vulnerable communities who rely on those organisations for access to justice and other benefits.

What remedy is sought

The firms are not seeking to remove transformation requirements from the legal sector.

Their proposed remedy is that the LSC be set aside and that the Generic Codes apply while a revised, lawful and evidence-based Legal Sector Code is developed. In their view, this would avoid a regulatory vacuum and allow for a code that is capable of advancing meaningful, broad-based and sustainable transformation.

The firms’ position

The firms remain fully committed to transformation and to working constructively with government and stakeholders to develop a Legal Sector Code that is practical, inclusive and evidence-based.  Their position is that transformation must be both meaningful and sustainable, and that this requires a framework that is lawful, properly researched and capable of delivering real change across the profession as a whole.

Ends