Local top-tier law firm Webber Wentzel and international legal giant Linklaters have agreed to end their longstanding alliance in November, bringing to a close what appears to be the last major exclusive bilateral pairing between an independently branded South African firm and one of London’s elite global practices.
The decision to end the alliance, which both sides presented as an amicable and mutually agreed separation, follows an unmistakable period of retrenchment and rearrangement in South Africa’s corporate legal market.
In a brief press announcement, Gareth Driver, senior partner of Webber Wentzel, said: “Our relationship with Linklaters spans more than half a century, and we hold the firm and its people in the highest regard. This marks the next chapter for Webber Wentzel as a proudly African firm with deep South African roots and a track record of advising on the continent’s most significant matters. We look forward to continued growth alongside our clients across the continent.”
Linklaters senior partner Aedamar Comiskey said: “I’d like to thank Gareth and the Webber Wentzel team for their partnership. Our alliance is ending but our commitment to supporting clients on their most complex, cross-border matters remains unchanged. We look forward to continuing to serve our clients in Africa, drawing on the strength of our global platform and the depth of our relationships, market knowledge and experience across the continent.”
The decision is the latest development in a period of retreat, restructuring and loosening ties between international firms and the South African legal market.
A&O Shearman closed its Joburg office at the end of 2024 as part of the restructuring that followed the merger of Allen & Overy and New York firm Shearman & Sterling. Hogan Lovells announced the closure of its Joburg office at almost exactly the same time, along with offices in Sydney and Warsaw, saying it wanted to concentrate its investment on a smaller group of “strategic markets”.
Then, at the end of March this year, the South African arm of Norton Rose Fulbright left the global organisation and reclaimed a version of its historic identity, Deneys. The firm, which traces its lineage to Deneys Reitz and has offices in Joburg, Cape Town and Durban, had joined the Norton Rose group in 2011. It now operates independently again after roughly 15 years under the international banner.
A looser relationship
The Webber Wentzel-Linklaters split is not quite the same thing. Linklaters is not closing a South African office because it never had one. Nor is Webber Wentzel leaving a global firm: the two businesses remained legally and financially independent. But the termination is significant because it dismantles the middle road between full global integration and ordinary arm’s-length referrals.
Under the alliance, established through a collaboration agreement in 2012, Linklaters could offer its international clients direct access to Webber Wentzel lawyers in Joburg and Cape Town. Webber Wentzel, in turn, could offer its clients access to Linklaters’ international network and expertise in English, US and other foreign law. The relationship included joint training, business development and more than 40 lawyer secondments, and the firms presented their service on major cross-border matters as integrated rather than merely co-operative.
From November, they will return to the looser relationship that existed for decades before the alliance. The official explanation is that their “respective strategies have evolved” with informed observers concluding that the value of exclusivity has declined.
For Webber Wentzel, the financial risk is straightforward. South African work arising from Linklaters’ global clients will no longer be institutionally channelled towards it. Linklaters will be free to choose Bowmans, ENS, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Werksmans or another firm according to the client, the specialisation required, the price and the conflicts involved.
The effect could be particularly noticeable in practices such as mergers and acquisitions, banking and finance, capital markets, competition, mining, energy and international disputes. These are the areas in which a single cross-border mandate can occupy several partners and teams for months.
But the loss could easily be counterbalanced by new referrals from other firms, and the two firms both say they expect to continue working together. Still, Webber Wentzel loses the presumption that it will be the South African firm on the next Linklaters-led transaction.
Once independence is established, Webber Wentzel could easily cultivate a much broader group of international referral sources. It may also be able to accept litigation, competition and regulatory mandates previously blocked by conflicts arising from Linklaters’ enormous global client list.
There may also be greater pricing freedom. An integrated Linklaters-Webber Wentzel service carried the assurance, but also potentially the cost, of a premium international offering. Webber Wentzel may now be able to structure fees more flexibly, allocate work more efficiently and compete directly for multinational mandates without having to fit the assignment into Linklaters’ global billing and project-management structure.
On the other hand, it may lose some of the pricing power that came from being packaged with one of the world’s most prestigious law firms.
For Linklaters, the direct financial consequences will probably be tiny. The firm reported revenue of £2.47bn and profit of £1.2bn for the year to April 2026, with average profit per equity partner rising to £2.48m. South African referral work, however valuable, is unlikely to be material against a global business of that scale.
What Linklaters loses is not primarily revenue, but infrastructure. It will no longer have an identified, deeply familiar South African team available almost automatically. It may have to negotiate separate appointments, co-ordinate between different firms and manage the quality and division of work on a mandate-by-mandate basis.
What it gains is choice. It can continue to use Webber Wentzel where appropriate, but can use another local firm when the client, price, expertise or conflicts dictate otherwise. It retains access to South Africa without carrying the considerable fixed cost of opening an office.
That model – serving South Africa from London, Dubai or elsewhere while assembling local counsel as required – appears increasingly attractive to international firms.
The big break-ups
The history of international tie-ups in South Africa suggests that alliances often end at precisely the point when one side wants greater integration and the other wants greater independence.
DLA Piper and Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr ended their 10-year exclusive alliance in 2015 after discussions about aligning the firms more closely. Cliffe Dekker Hofmery decided not to proceed to the next level of integration, and the two concluded that their African and international strategies would be better pursued separately. DLA Piper subsequently established its own Joburg operation.
Routledge Modise’s earlier association with Eversheds ended in 2012 for a more concrete reason: the South African firm wanted to act against a significant Eversheds client. It was a textbook example of the hidden cost of an international alliance. A relationship that generates referrals can also create conflicts that prevent the local firm from accepting lucrative domestic work.
Routledge Modise then combined with Hogan Lovells in 2013, but that relationship also unravelled. Most of the South African partnership broke away in 2019 to form the independent practice that became Lawtons Africa, while Hogan Lovells retained a smaller, more directly integrated Joburg team. Five years later, Hogan Lovells decided to close that office as well.
The crucial test will not come when the alliance formally ends in November. It will come during 2027 and 2028, as new transactions and disputes are awarded.
If Linklaters continues sending most of its South African work to Webber Wentzel, the separation may amount largely to the removal of exclusivity. If the work begins flowing to several firms, the financial effect on Webbers could be more serious. If Webber Wentzel replaces those instructions with referrals from Linklaters’ competitors and work previously blocked by conflicts, it may emerge stronger.
Either way, the split closes a chapter in the internationalisation of South Africa’s legal profession.
The old assumption was that a leading South African firm would eventually have to choose a global partner. The emerging assumption is almost the reverse: unless the firms are willing to integrate fully, a leading African practice may be more valuable when it remains free to choose everybody.
ALSO READ:
- Why global law firms keep quitting South Africa
- Inside the tie-up of South Africa’s biggest asset managers
- Legal heavyweights join forces to fight BEE rules
Top image collage: Rawpixel; Currency.
Sign up to Currency’s weekly newsletters to receive your own bulletin of weekday news and weekend treats. Register here.
