South Africa’s legal sector has lost another major international partnership, after Johannesburg-based Webber Wentzel and London’s Linklaters confirmed their 13-year formal alliance will conclude on 1 November 2026. The announcement, made jointly by the two firms, follows the exit of Norton Rose Fulbright’s South African practice from its global network on 31 March 2026.
The pattern has prompted questions in South African business and legal circles about whether global law firms are reassessing the country as a market, at a time when the rand, interest rates and investment flows are already under scrutiny from international boardrooms.
What is actually changing
Webber Wentzel and Linklaters said in a joint statement that they have agreed to end their formal alliance and revert to the more flexible, informal working relationship that defined their partnership before it was formalised in February 2013. “Since the alliance was established in 2013, Africa’s legal and commercial landscape has changed significantly,” the firms said, adding that “our clients now operate across increasingly sophisticated and interconnected markets” and that ending the formal tie “reflects the natural progression of our respective strategies.”
Practically, this means Webber Wentzel is no longer bound to refer international work exclusively to Linklaters and can now take referrals from, and recommend, a wider range of global firms, including some that compete directly with Linklaters. The two firms say they will continue collaborating on cross-border deals where it suits clients, and neither firm has indicated any reduction in South African headcount or office footprint as a result of the split, according to BusinessTech’s reporting on the announcement.
Norton Rose Fulbright’s South African exit was more structural. According to Norton Rose Fulbright’s own update, the firm’s South African practice, led by Brent Botha, formally ended its membership of the global network on 31 March 2026 and returned to operating under its earlier name, Deneys. The global Norton Rose Fulbright network says it has no financial or legal relationship with, nor ownership of, the newly independent South African firm, though the two sides say they will still collaborate on cross-border work where client needs align.
Why firms say they are restructuring
The firms involved have mostly avoided describing their moves as a retreat from South Africa, framing them instead as strategic resets. The underlying economics are less flattering for global firms running integrated international profit pools: South African fee rates generally sit well below those in London, New York or Hong Kong, making it harder for a global partnership structure to justify the cost of a dedicated local alliance once a firm’s own domestic practice is already established.
That tension is not new. South Africa’s “big five” domestic firms, Webber Wentzel, Bowmans, ENSafrica, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr and Werksmans, have continued to advise on the bulk of major mergers and acquisitions work by value over the past decade, leaving international entrants competing for a narrower slice of high-value mandates while carrying the cost base of a global brand.
Not every international firm is pulling back
The picture is not one of uniform retreat. Dentons, DLA Piper, Baker McKenzie and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer have continued to invest in South Africa and the wider region, and Pinsent Masons opened a Cape Town legal services centre in January 2026 specifically to serve international clients. Norton Rose’s South African leadership has also pushed back on reading too much into the recent exits, arguing that each case should be judged on its own commercial logic rather than as evidence that South Africa has become a failed proposition for global law firms.
What it means for business clients
For South African companies and multinationals doing business here, the immediate effect is less about legal capability, since the same partners and associates generally stay in place, and more about which international firms they can be referred to for cross-border matters. A business that relied on Webber Wentzel’s exclusive Linklaters pipeline for European-facing deals, for instance, will now find its lawyers able to draw on a broader panel of international firms rather than a single partner.
The bigger signal for the business community is about sentiment. Law firm structuring decisions tend to lag, rather than lead, broader capital allocation decisions, so this kind of restructuring is worth watching alongside harder indicators such as foreign direct investment flows and listed-company delistings from the JSE. The real test of whether this reflects a structural retreat or simply a cyclical reshuffle will come as new cross-border mandates are awarded in the years ahead, and firms can be judged on where that work actually lands.
