Lawyers, especially advocates, are notoriously arrogant, hard-headed and competitive — a stereoÂÂtype, yes, but this perception is widespread. They are competing for billions of rands in legal fees, so this should come as no surprise.
But it does mean the atmosphere that invariably permeates the Bar is not conducive to thoughtful and critical reflection.
At the same time advocates are dependent on big law firms and their rich clients to brief them. This means that few of them who are financially successful would rock the boat by challenging the existing institutional culture and racist assumptions at the Bar.
Nor would they challenge the ingrained racist assumptions of some of attorneys and the clients dishing out the work.
Understandably there is great bitterness among black advocates about the present state of affairs.
It is against this background that the fight at the Johannesburg Bar about the condemnation of Cape Judge President John Hlophe must be seen.
The majority of black advocates are boycotting meetings of the Johannesburg Bar.
Many are reconsidering their membership after two white advocates tabled a resolution calling for Hlophe to step down.
I assume most black lawyers do not condone the actions of Hlophe — which remains stupid and unethical — but that they feel this is just another stick with which the rich, white, status quo-loving advocates wish to beat all black people.
If we had had real transformation in the legal profession — and if the ÂÂmajority of white lawyers at the Johannesburg Bar had really embraced transformation and all that goes with it — I suspect the majority of black lawyers would not have resisted censure of Hlophe.
But, having said all that, I still think the black advocates are making a huge mistake by using the Hlophe issue to try to spearhead transformation at the Bar. The fact is that Hlophe did take more than R500 000 from Oasis and he lied about the nature of the payments.
Yet he continues to serve blithely as judge president — even requesting the state to provide him with a Porsche.
To try to defend him, or to try to make an argument about why we should not criticise him or call for his resignation, because the complaint against him was launched by white lawyers or because white lawyers used his indiscretions to reinforce their own racial prejudices, is to hand power back to the racists.
If one cannot condemn a judge’s deeply problematic and unethical actions — actions that besmirched Hlope’s name and the integrity of the judiciary as a whole — merely because that judge happens to be black and has white detractors, then one is not a free agent but a prisoner of the racist paradigm one is supposedly resisting.
There are so many other issues on which advocates for transformation and the Black Lawyers’ Association could take a stand to try to attack the complacency and smug refusal to acknowledge racial problems of many white advocates. Using Hlophe’s case to do so is unwise, unethical and not in the spirit of Steve Biko.
Lawyers, especially advocates, are notoriously arrogant, hard-headed and competitive — a stereoÂÂtype, yes, but this perception is widespread. They are competing for billions of rands in legal fees, so this should come as no surprise.
But it does mean the atmosphere that invariably permeates the Bar is not conducive to thoughtful and critical reflection.
At the same time advocates are dependent on big law firms and their rich clients to brief them. This means that few of them who are financially successful would rock the boat by challenging the existing institutional culture and racist assumptions at the Bar.
Nor would they challenge the ingrained racist assumptions of some of attorneys and the clients dishing out the work.
Understandably there is great bitterness among black advocates about the present state of affairs.
It is against this background that the fight at the Johannesburg Bar about the condemnation of Cape Judge President John Hlophe must be seen.
The majority of black advocates are boycotting meetings of the Johannesburg Bar.
Many are reconsidering their membership after two white advocates tabled a resolution calling for Hlophe to step down.
I assume most black lawyers do not condone the actions of Hlophe — which remains stupid and unethical — but that they feel this is just another stick with which the rich, white, status quo-loving advocates wish to beat all black people.
If we had had real transformation in the legal profession — and if the ÂÂmajority of white lawyers at the Johannesburg Bar had really embraced transformation and all that goes with it — I suspect the majority of black lawyers would not have resisted censure of Hlophe.
But, having said all that, I still think the black advocates are making a huge mistake by using the Hlophe issue to try to spearhead transformation at the Bar. The fact is that Hlophe did take more than R500 000 from Oasis and he lied about the nature of the payments.
Yet he continues to serve blithely as judge president — even requesting the state to provide him with a Porsche.
To try to defend him, or to try to make an argument about why we should not criticise him or call for his resignation, because the complaint against him was launched by white lawyers or because white lawyers used his indiscretions to reinforce their own racial prejudices, is to hand power back to the racists.
If one cannot condemn a judge’s deeply problematic and unethical actions — actions that besmirched Hlope’s name and the integrity of the judiciary as a whole — merely because that judge happens to be black and has white detractors, then one is not a free agent but a prisoner of the racist paradigm one is supposedly resisting.
There are so many other issues on which advocates for transformation and the Black Lawyers’ Association could take a stand to try to attack the complacency and smug refusal to acknowledge racial problems of many white advocates. Using ÂÂHlophe’s case to do so is unwise, unethical and not in the spirit of Steve Biko.
Pierre de Vos is professor of constitutional law at the University of the Western Cape. This column first appeared on his blog constitutionallyspeaking.co.za