Legal heavyweights join forces to fight BEE rules

Parks Tau is getting it from all sides. Donald Trump’s global trade war and a steel sector on the brink are the most urgent threats. Now, he’s fighting another headache: South Africa’s top legal minds have joined forces to challenge broad-based BEE (BBBEE) rules thrust upon them – a move that could upend the transformation agenda.

The minister of trade, industry and competition sparked uproar in September by gazetting the Legal Sector Code of Good Practice (LSC). Firms were ordered to comply with the stricter rules immediately and ditch the generic codes on which they had built their empowerment strategies. As a result, top law firms saw their scorecards crash from level 1 to level 6 or worse – without warning or a grace period.

Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (NRFSA) was first to hit back, launching a legal challenge in December, asking the Pretoria high court to suspend the implementation of the codes and set them aside entirely. Now, Bowmans, Webber Wentzel and Werksmans have formally joined the case, intervening in support of a full review of the LSC.

“A legal sector-specific code needs to be workable and sustainable, based on sound empirical evidence, and should not inadvertently harm the broader legal profession,” they said in a joint statement on Tuesday. “The LSC introduces significant implementation and structural challenges that risk undermining transformation efforts and the long-term sustainability of the sector.”

All four firms stress their support for transformation and a legal sector-specific BBBEE framework. However, they argue that the LSC was imposed without sufficient consultation or a proper understanding of the legal industry’s structure. They also warn it may end up undermining the very transformation goals it seeks to advance.

Of course, it also comes down to money. Without the right BBBEE credentials, major law firms stand to lose clients that require a level 1 rating – including the public sector and state-owned companies.

There is also frustration that the substantial investments the firms have made in transformation are given little recognition under the new codes. This, they argue, fails to acknowledge the “real, measurable transformation” already under way in the industry.

Collectively, the firms spend more than R216m annually on Black-owned suppliers and support hundreds of Black candidate attorneys through bursaries, training and mentorship. But the LSC also removes socioeconomic development from the new scorecard – despite it being a “core pillar” of BBBEE under the generic codes. This includes bursaries, as well as pro bono work and community education, which the firms claim are “crucial to enabling broader participation in the profession and advancing inclusive economic development”.

Fighting on multiple fronts

Perhaps the clearest sign of the department of trade, industry and competition’s lack of understanding of how corporate law firms operate is how the ministry expects law firms to pay advocates. The LSC mandates that 60% of a law firm’s spend on advocates must go to Black advocates by year five. Only, as Bowmans, Webber Wentzel and Werksmans point out, law firms don’t actually hire advocates – their clients do.

“There is a further complication in that law firms should provide disinterested, objective advice to their clients when recommending advocates, so should not have regard to their own interests in the form of the effect on their own BBBEE rating,” they said. “This is fundamentally different from decisions relating to the firm’s own service providers, such as landlords or IT suppliers.”

Another sticking point is the ownership timeline.

The LSC doubled Black ownership targets to 50% by year five. But, as the firms point out, only practising lawyers can hold equity in a law firm – and most equity partners retain their stakes until retirement. Junior lawyers typically need 10 to 11 years of training and mentoring before reaching partnership level.

“This means that even with the best intentions, firms simply cannot meet these targets within the required timeframe.”

Transformation milestones the firms cite include:

• Bowmans: Maintained Black ownership between 24.7% and 28.6% over the past decade; trained over 356 Black candidate attorneys in the past five years; awarded more than 20 bursaries to Black university students in 2024.
• Webber Wentzel: Increased the proportion of Black partners from 25% in 2019 to 37% in 2025; 55% of its lawyers are now Black – an 81% increase over the past decade; trained 178 Black candidate attorneys and spent more than R6.7m on bursaries over the past five years.
• Werksmans: Raised Black partner representation from 20% in 2019 to 30.71% in 2025; Black professionals now make up 75% of junior lawyers, up from 66% five years ago; invested more than R45m in Black-owned suppliers and R17m in Black professional development in 2024 alone.

Trade, industry and competition spokesperson Yamkela Fanisi says the three law firms are “within their right” to join NRFSA in its application, adding: “The seventh administration remains deeply committed to redress and transformation.”

For Tau, the timing couldn’t be worse. His department has its hands full trying to draw up an action plan for the cabinet on how to respond to the tariffs slapped on South African exports by the US – and its implications for the automotive, agriculture, steel and aluminium sectors.

Then there’s his R100bn transformation fund, which has seen pushback from business leaders. There are also holes in cannabis regulations, and the competition authority is constantly under fire for its decisions.

And a key political fault line has emerged: one of Tau’s two deputies hails from the DA, at a time when the government of national unity is looking increasingly fragile.

This minister is waging a war on too many fronts. And going up against the nation’s legal titans may be one battle he cannot afford to lose. Especially if he doesn’t know his enemy.