Adv Matseleng Lekoane told the Gauteng High Court on Thursday that striking down the Legal Sector Code would condemn Black women lawyers to continued exclusion from the profession, arguing that the challenge brought by major law firms ignored the lived realities of transformation failures over the past three decades.
Appearing for Basadi ba Molao, Lekoane said the very composition of the courtroom reflected the inequalities the code was designed to address.
“It does not escape one, my lady, that I am the first Black female standing up before this court three days later,” she told the full bench hearing the challenge against the Legal Sector Code. “This cannot be normal.”
The Legal Sector Code, adopted under the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment framework, imposes transformation targets on the legal profession, including ownership, briefing patterns, procurement and representation of Black practitioners and women.
The code has been challenged by several law firms and legal organisations, which argue that the drafting and consultation process was unlawful and irrational.
‘Without the code, there’s no hope’
Lekoane, however, argued that the applicants’ complaints were fundamentally about protecting commercial interests while the profession continued to exclude black women from meaningful participation.
“If you remove those policies, there’s no hope. We are lost. Back out in the cold,” she said.
“Not that where we are, we are warm. We are not. We are struggling.”
Her address followed submissions by senior counsel defending the Legal Sector Code, with Lekoane joking that she had been abandoned by senior advocates “jumping ship” before her turn to address the court.
“I don’t know how to feel about all the seniors who are now abandoning and jumping ship,” she told the judges.
Advancement of Black women in law
She said the case was particularly important because the code specifically targeted the advancement of Black women in law.
“Basadi ba Molao are both Black and white women, but the LSE targets specifically Black women,” she said.
“And for good reasons.”
Lekoane repeatedly returned to the issue of briefing patterns and the quality of work allocated to Black women practitioners, saying the Legal Sector Code sought to address both access to work and participation in specialised areas of practice.
“The LSC addresses exactly that,” she said.
“It includes the quality of the work, not just work.”
Structural barriers
She argued that the applicants wanted the court to “jettison the entire code” despite its attempts to tackle structural barriers facing Black women lawyers.
A central part of her argument focused on the transformation claims made by applicant law firms themselves.
Referring to affidavits filed by one of the applicants, identified in court as NRF, Lekoane said the firm portrayed itself as a transformation success story because it had achieved Level 1 BEE status under the generic codes.
But she argued that the details disclosed by the firm revealed how limited those transformation efforts actually were.
Reading from the affidavit, Lekoane said the firm cited initiatives such as onboarding a Black female-owned law firm as an enterprise development beneficiary, paying for business incubation courses, providing mentorship and giving access to legal databases.
She also referred to the onboarding of a black-owned cleaning company as a supplier development initiative.
“On its own version, [it] is far from being a transformed law firm,” she argued.
The court, however, repeatedly questioned whether those factual disputes assisted in deciding the legality of the code itself.
Validity and rationality of the code
Judges pointed out that the central issues before the court related to the validity and rationality of the legal sector code, rather than whether individual firms had transformed sufficiently.
But Lekoane insisted that the applicants’ own evidence illustrated why the Legal Sector Code remained necessary.
“The certificate that they rely on, the verification certificate, does not really tell you much about the content of this Level 1,” she said.
“The transformation that is actually happening.”
The exchange with the bench became one of the more notable moments of the hearing, with judges openly probing whether transformation statistics and individual firm conduct were relevant to the legality challenge before the court.
At one point, a judge remarked that while the evidence may not assist directly on legality, the court wanted to hear the experiences of Black women in the profession.
“We would want to hear the experience of women, Black women, in this profession,” the judge said.
The code and BEE ratings
Lekoane also addressed one of the applicants’ key complaints – that implementation of the Legal Sector Code would push firms from Level 1 BEE ratings down to lower compliance levels, making them less competitive for state legal work.
She acknowledged that the code could have financial consequences for firms but argued that those consequences were temporary and justified.
“Yes, they may drop from one to six,” she said.
“But then one must say, But you’ve had 30 years to get ready.”
When judges pointed out that firms could improve their scores over time, Lekoane agreed, saying the process remained entirely within their control.
“If they improve their transformation component in their companies, they may very well return to Level 1,” she said.
“But that’s entirely up to them.”
She argued that while firms complained about financial harm, the greater harm would fall on Black lawyers if the code were struck down.
“If it is jettisoned, the status quo remains,” she said.
“It arrests the current position.”
Concern over delays in transformation
Lekoane warned that continued delays in transformation would drive more Black practitioners out of the profession entirely.
“The attrition rates have been pending before this court,” she said.
“By the time it comes back, how many other lawyers would have left?”
She described the issue as generational, saying the impact of exclusion extended beyond individual lawyers into broader economic participation.
“When you support a black female lawyer, that person goes out and contributes to the country,” she argued.
Lekoane further noted that the applicant firms and their representative bodies had participated in consultations around the Legal Sector Code process and therefore could not claim surprise at its eventual adoption.
“They knew all along that this code was coming,” she said.
Toward the end of her submissions, she described the Legal Sector Code as an “incentive model” designed to encourage transformation, although she lamented that such incentives were necessary at all.
“You shouldn’t incentivise somebody to develop their own country and its own people,” she said.
“That in itself shows the problem.”
The hearing continued on Friday.
- Adv Matseleng Lekoane argued before the Gauteng High Court that striking down the Legal Sector Code (LSC) would perpetuate the exclusion of Black women lawyers from the profession, highlighting ongoing transformation failures in the legal sector over 30 years.
- The LSC, part of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment framework, sets transformation targets for legal firms concerning ownership, briefing patterns, procurement, and representation of Black practitioners and women, and is challenged by firms claiming procedural unfairness.
- Lekoane emphasized that the code addresses structural barriers faced by Black women lawyers, including access to quality work, and rebutted claims from applicant firms who portrayed themselves as transformed but had limited genuine transformation.
- The court questioned the relevance of firm-level transformation evidence to the legality of the code, though judges expressed interest in the experiences of Black women in the profession, underscoring the importance of transformation.
- Despite acknowledging potential short-term financial impacts on firms, Lekoane insisted the code’s benefits for Black lawyers outweigh these, warning that without it, Black lawyers risk attrition and persistent exclusion from meaningful legal practice.
Adv
“It does not escape one, my lady, that I am the first Black female standing up before this court three days later,” she told the full bench hearing the challenge against the Legal Sector Code. “
Lekoane, however, argued that the applicants’ complaints were fundamentally about protecting commercial interests while the profession continued to exclude black women from meaningful participation.
"If you remove those policies, there’s no hope. We are lost. Back out in the cold,” she said.
“Not that where we are, we are warm. We are not. We are struggling.”
Her address followed submissions by senior counsel defending the Legal Sector Code, with Lekoane joking that she had been abandoned by senior advocates “jumping ship” before her turn to address the court.
“I don’t know how to feel about all the seniors who are now abandoning and jumping ship,” she told the judges.
“Basadi ba Molao are both Black and white women, but the LSE targets specifically Black women,” she said.
“
Lekoane repeatedly returned to the issue of briefing patterns and the quality of work allocated to Black women practitioners, saying the Legal Sector Code sought to address both access to work and participation in specialised areas of practice.
“
“It includes the quality of the work, not just work.”
A central part of her argument focused on the transformation claims made by applicant law firms themselves.
But she argued that the details disclosed by the firm revealed how limited those transformation efforts actually were.
“On its own version, [it] is far from being a transformed law firm,” she argued.
Judges pointed out that the central issues before the court related to the validity and rationality of the legal sector code, rather than whether individual firms had transformed sufficiently.
But Lekoane insisted that the applicants’ own evidence illustrated why the Legal Sector Code remained necessary.
“
“
At one point, a judge remarked that while the evidence may not assist directly on legality, the court wanted to hear the experiences of Black women in the profession.
“We would want to hear the experience of women, Black women, in this profession,” the judge said.
Lekoane also addressed one of the applicants’ key complaints – that implementation of the Legal Sector Code would push firms from Level 1 BEE ratings down to lower compliance levels, making them less competitive for state legal work.
“Yes, they may drop from one to six,” she said.
“But then one must say, But you’ve had 30 years to get ready.”
When judges pointed out that firms could improve their scores over time, Lekoane agreed, saying the process remained entirely within their control.
“If they improve their transformation component in their companies, they may very well return to Level 1,” she said.
“But that’s entirely up to them.”
“If it is jettisoned, the status quo remains,” she said.
“It arrests the current position.”
Lekoane warned that continued delays in transformation would drive more Black practitioners out of the profession entirely.
“
“By the time it comes back, how many other lawyers would have left?”
“When you support a black female lawyer, that person goes out and contributes to the country,” she argued.
Lekoane further noted that the applicant firms and their representative bodies had participated in consultations around the Legal Sector Code process and therefore could not claim surprise at its eventual adoption.
“
Toward the end of her submissions, she described the Legal Sector Code as an “incentive model” designed to encourage transformation, although she lamented that such incentives were necessary at all.
“You shouldn’t incentivise somebody to develop their own country and its own people,” she said.
“
