Publications
Partners
Lawyers in Joburg took a stand this week to propose that attorneys who employ lily-white legal teams must be sanctioned for professional misconduct.
A fresh row over the briefing of black lawyers started last week after comments by human rights lawyer Richard Spoor implied that the black lawyers who were available to him were not good enough for him to use in his public-interest case.
In his Facebook post, Spoor wrote: “Law is an elitist profession. My interest as the attorney is winning the case and I have no latitude to accommodate unsuitable people. Colour does not qualify you if you don’t meet the other requirements. The work I do doesn’t leave much room for charity or experimentation.”
Joburg’s black lawyers now want to have “undiversified” legal teams regarded as misconduct among practitioners.
The proposal, which could see attorneys being punished for briefing undiversified legal teams, is expected to be tabled before the annual general meeting of the Johannesburg Bar Council this week.
If accepted, it would see a tribunal being constituted that would also determine the necessary penalty.
Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza said Spoor’s comments were a true reflection of the legal fraternity’s attitudes.
According to Ntsebeza, who heads Advocates for Transformation (AFT), among other perceptions were that black advocates were incompetent, unintelligent and non-exceptional compared with their white counterparts.
“We have many exceptional and competent practitioners who even in this day and age are still being excluded from being briefed because of the stereotype,” he said.
“Richard [Spoor] was frank enough to verbalise this matter. The profession remains untransformed and favours white counterparts. Many human rights organisations, including the SA Human Rights Commission, and others who claim to advocate for the rights of the underdogs, brief mostly white counsel.”
Spoor, who is representing former mine workers in a silicosis class action against gold mining companies, has nearly 40 counsel involved in the matter. Only three are black while the remaining senior counsel are white.
This week, scores of lawyers staged an unprecedented protest at the South Gauteng High Court against Spoor’s conduct.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, who led the protest, made a submission signed by 115 Johannesburg Bar Council members to the high court hearing the class action.
In the submission, Mpofu said they were “victims of the racist remarks made, which not only constitute a gross violation of our human rights, but also the perpetuation of apartheid, a crime against humanity as declared by the United Nations”.
Mpofu requested the court to “note their rejection of racism in the legal profession, in the justice sector generally, and South Africa as a whole”.
Last week, several senior black lawyers, including Muzi Sikhakhane, Gcina Malindi and Vincent Maleka issued a joint statement in which they said: “It is ironic that Mr Spoor makes these insulting statements while he represents black miners exploited by white capital. One wonders whether he respects these black workers, or are they simply pawns in his paternalistic world?”
In an email exchange between Spoor and Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana, Spoor apologised to AFT and the Bar Council for what he called “an ill-considered and offensive post that dealt with my failure to brief any black advocates in the silicosis class action presently before the Johannesburg high court”.
Ngalwana, however, rejected the apology.
Spoor fired back at Ngalwana, saying it seemed he wanted to proclaim him a rabid and vitriolic racist on the basis of scanty information from an ill-considered Facebook post.
“To pass such harsh judgement on such a flimsy basis is not befitting a senior advocate of your stature. It is doubly unfortunate because, just a few weeks ago, I nominated you as the arbitrator in a dispute over compensation between the Rand Mutual Association and my client, a paraplegic mine worker,” he wrote.
Spoor said the association gave him a selection of three senior advocates, of whom two were white, but he chose Ngalwana because “I felt you were best suited on the basis of your record and reputation”.
“Clearly, I was wrong in my assessment of you,” he added.
