Law firm halts part of BEE challenge

International law firm Norton Rose Fulbright SA has let go of an aspect of its legal challenge seeking to suspend a newly implemented policy aimed at transformation of the legal sector. The firm initiated a legal challenge against trade, industry & competition minister Parks Tau on implementation of the broad-based BEE legal sector code, a policy meant to strengthen black practitioners’ ownership of law firms.

International law firm Norton Rose Fulbright SA (NRFSA) has let go of its legal challenge seeking to suspend a newly implemented policy aimed at transformation of the legal sector.

The firm initiated a legal challenge against trade, industry & competition minister Parks Tau, over implementation of the broad-based BEE legal sector code, a policy initiative to ensure black practitioners had strengthened ownership of law firms. the year of its next broad-based BEE verification

The legal challenge was split in two parts. First, the firm urgently sought an interim order to suspend the legal sector code’s operation pending the second part of the application in which it wanted the high court to declare the legal sector code unlawful and unconstitutional.

There have been complaints by black lawyers about the slow pace of transformation in the sector that is dominated by five firms: Bowmans, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, ENSafrica, Webber Wentzel and Werksmans.

Tau was meant to file court papers last Friday answering to the interim order plea; however, this week the department and law firm had consultations.

NRFSA director Brent Botha, said that after a consultative process with the department, the law firm agreed to forego the application for an interim order to suspend the legal sector code’s operation. “NRFSA has agreed to a proposal of the ministry of trade, industry & competition, regarding the next steps in the litigation with a view to seeking a progressive outcome for all parties. NRFSA remains committed to the objectives of the legal sector code but, in the interests, among others, of seeking clarity on the implementation of the code, and to seek a conclusion more expeditiously on the merits of the application, NRFSA has agreed to forego the interdicting of the application of the code,” he said.

The firm has let go of the interim order challenge, but continues its fight to have the code declared unconstitutional. Botha said that the firm forwent the first part of the application because the ministry had “offered an expedited hearing of the main review application”.

“We will withdraw Part A, but we persist with Part B. This is a welcome development, which is in line with our commitment to transformation and to the interests of the country. We remain open to engaging with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that the version of the legal sector code that is implemented is one that is both inclusive, achievable and viable, promoting meaningful change without creating undue barriers to compliance.”