Humanicate
Why South Africa’s most talented advocates are the hardest to find — and what to do about it –
By Marion-Rose Banks
Founder & Chief Communication Conduit, Humanicate
Let me begin with a simple question. How many exceptionally talented advocates do you know whose expertise very few people outside their immediate professional circle ever encounter? Brilliant legal minds. Sharp courtroom thinkers. People whose arguments could change how the law is understood. Yet outside the courtroom, their professional voice is almost invisible — not because their expertise is lacking, but because the environment in which professional reputations are discovered has quietly changed around them.
This is not a critique of the profession. It is an observation about the gap between the quality of thinking that happens inside the legal world and the visibility of that thinking in the wider professional environment. And it is a gap that advocates can close — without compromising the values or the rules that define the profession. In fact, as this article will show, the rules actively support it.
The question for advocates is no longer only: How well can you argue? It is also: How easily can your expertise be found?
How reputation used to travel
For most of the history of the Bar, professional reputation moved in very particular ways. An advocate’s name travelled quietly through the profession — attorneys spoke to one another, judges observed the quality of arguments presented before them, and senior practitioners shared their impressions of emerging counsel. Reputation was built through professional observation, through the steady accumulation of demonstrated expertise, and through the trust that grew between practitioners who had worked alongside one another over many years.
That system served the profession well, and it still matters. The quality of your work remains the foundation of everything. Nothing in the digital world changes that. But the environment in which expertise is discovered has expanded significantly. Attorneys increasingly research potential counsel before issuing briefs. Professional communities exchange ideas through digital platforms. Legal commentary now travels far beyond the physical spaces in which lawyers once interacted.
Research conducted by the International Bar Association found that more than ninety percent of respondents indicated that digital networks now present a new reality for the legal profession. More than three quarters said the advantages of engaging in these spaces outweigh the risks. Professional authority still originates in expertise. Professional visibility now plays a growing role in how that expertise is found. The most practical response to this shift is also the simplest. Start by searching your own name. What does an attorney find when they look you up before considering a brief? If the answer is very little — or nothing at all — that is the gap. And it is one that can be addressed, incrementally, without a significant investment of time or resources
TAKEAWAY 1
The environment has changed. Your approach needs to as well.
- Attorneys research counsel online before briefing. If you are not findable, you are not in the running.
- Digital presence does not replace word-of-mouth. It extends the reach of your reputation beyond the rooms you physically occupy.
- The advocates who will be most visible in the next decade are not necessarily the most talented. They are the ones whose expertise is most clearly communicated.
What the rules actually say
The concern I hear most often from advocates is a legitimate one. The Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 and the LPC Code of Conduct are clear that advocates must conduct themselves with dignity and integrity, and must refrain from doing anything that could bring the profession into disrepute. For many advocates, this has translated into a default position of near-total professional silence outside the courtroom.
That default is understandable. But it is not what the rules require.
Section 7 of the LPC Code of Conduct governs approaches and publicity. It defines publicity broadly as any direct or indirect reference to a legal practitioner, published or disseminated by any written, pictorial or oral means, in any medium — explicitly including electronic and social media. Importantly, it does not prohibit publicity. It regulates its manner and content. Specifically, it requires that all publicity must not bring the profession into disrepute, must not misrepresent the nature of services offered, and must not disparage or claim superiority over other practitioners.
Section 3.13 goes further still. It requires all legal practitioners to remain reasonably abreast of legal developments, applicable laws and regulations, legal theory and the common law, and legal practice in the fields in which they practise. Writing about legal developments, reflecting on judgments, and contributing to public understanding of the law is not merely permitted under this provision. It is consistent with a professional obligation.
Read together, these provisions tell a clear story. The Code does not prohibit professional visibility. It prohibits misrepresentation, self-aggrandisement, and conduct unbecoming of the profession. A practitioner who shares genuine, considered legal insight — in a manner that is accurate, dignified, and grounded in real expertise — is acting entirely within the rules.
The Code does not prohibit professional visibility. It prohibits misrepresentation and conduct unbecoming of the profession. There is significant space between the two
Where the rules are silent — and why that matters
Here is where honesty requires us to go a step further.
The LPC Code of Conduct was gazetted in March 2019. Section 7’s definition of publicity is broad enough to include social media and digital platforms. But the Code was not drafted with LinkedIn thought leadership articles, professional website Insights blogs, or the dynamics of personal professional branding in the digital age specifically in mind. It sets boundaries. It does not provide a map.
The result is a grey area that most advocates resolve by doing nothing. The absence of explicit guidance is read as a signal to remain silent. But silence is itself a choice — and in an environment where professional expertise is increasingly discovered online, it is a choice with real consequences for professional visibility and, ultimately, for access to justice. Advocates whose expertise cannot be found cannot serve the clients who need them most.
The gap in the Code is not an invitation to do whatever one pleases. It is an invitation to exercise the same professional judgment that advocates bring to every other aspect of their practice. Where the rules are explicit, follow them precisely. Where they are silent, apply the principles that underpin them — integrity, dignity, and the avoidance of anything that could bring the profession into disrepute.
To make that judgment concrete and consistent, we suggest a simple three-question framework that every advocate can apply before publishing any piece of professional content.
THE THREE-QUESTION FRAMEWORK
Before publishing any piece of professional content, ask:
1. Does this educate or does it solicit?
Content that advances legal knowledge, contributes to public understanding of the law, or reflects on legal developments is contribution. Content that directly or indirectly invites instructions is solicitation. The former is consistent with the Code and with the professional obligation in section 3.13. The latter is not.
2. Does this demonstrate or does it claim?
Showing the quality of your thinking through analysis and insight is demonstration. Asserting superiority over other practitioners, or claiming expertise without grounding it in genuine knowledge, crosses the line that section 7 draws. Show the quality of your thinking. Do not assert it.
3. Would this withstand the section 3.15 test?
Before publishing anything, ask honestly: could this bring the profession into disrepute? Not in your own view, but in the view of a reasonable, senior member of the profession. If the answer is yes — or even possibly — do not publish it. If the answer is clearly no, proceed with confidence.
The Code sets the floor. Professional integrity sets the ceiling. A practitioner who operates thoughtfully between those two points has nothing to fear — and everything to gain.
TAKEAWAY 2
The rules permit professional visibility. The framework tells you how to navigate it.
- Section 7 of the LPC Code of Conduct regulates the manner of publicity — it does not prohibit it. Electronic and social media are explicitly included in its scope.
- Section 3.13 requires practitioners to remain abreast of legal developments. Writing about the law is consistent with this professional obligation.
- Where the Code is silent, apply the three-question framework: Does this educate or solicit? Does this demonstrate or claim? Would it withstand the section 3.15 test?
Visibility without a clear voice is just noise
Most professionals, when they decide to build a digital presence, start with the platforms. Which social media should I use? Do I need a website? Should I be writing articles? These are the wrong first questions. The right first question is: What do I want people to understand about me when they encounter my work? Because visibility alone does not create distinction. Distinction begins when your professional voice becomes clear.
If you cannot express, in a word or in a line, who you are as a professional — what makes your perspective distinctive, what you bring that others do not bring in quite the same way — the world around you will struggle to understand what you are about. Attorneys may recognise your capability but not be able to articulate what makes you different. Opportunities may pass you by, not because you lacked expertise, but because your voice lacked clarity. In a profession filled with capable minds, lack of clarity quietly delays recognition.
A clearly defined professional voice makes you memorable and intelligible. It allows the people around you to understand not only what you do, but what you bring. That clarity does not come from a tagline someone else writes for you. It comes from a process of honest self-examination — one that looks at the value you create, the stakeholders you serve, the strengths that distinguish you, the values you default to, and the natural role your voice plays in the professional world.
A useful exercise is to ask three people who know your work well — an attorney who has briefed you, a colleague who has observed you in practice, a peer whose judgment you respect — to describe in one sentence what makes your professional perspective distinctive. Listen carefully to the words they use, not just the ideas. Where their answers converge is your voice. Where they diverge is your clarity gap. Both are useful
A good reputation is not a journey. It is a destination. You arrive there by consistently aligning with and communicating the value you create, how you create it, and who you create it for.
When the elements of your professional identity are uncovered and clearly articulated, something practical follows. You no longer have to guess how to communicate. Every article you write, every opinion you share, every professional contribution you make flows from the same place. This creates consistency. Consistency builds authenticity. Authenticity generates credibility. And credibility, accumulated over time through contribution after contribution, is what reputation is made of.
TAKEAWAY 3
Your voice is already there. It needs to be uncovered, not invented.
- Ask three people who know your work: in one sentence, what makes my professional perspective distinctive? Where their answers converge is your voice. Where they diverge is your gap.
- Your professional voice is not a brand exercise. It is a clarity exercise. The goal is not to sound impressive. It is to be understood.
- Once you have clarity on your voice, every piece of content becomes easier to write, more consistent in tone, and more recognisable to the people who encounter it.
What this looks like in practice
The advocates who navigate this well share a few things in common. They are clear on who they serve and what they bring — they have done the work of understanding their professional identity, not as a marketing exercise, but as a genuine act of self-knowledge. They contribute consistently and without apology. They write, they reflect, they share. They apply the three-question framework not as a constraint but as a compass. And they do not wait until they feel ready, because the work of becoming ready is the work itself.
They also understand that the return is not immediate. Reputation builds slowly. A single article does not change your professional standing. Ten articles, published over a year, each one clear and considered and distinctly yours, begins to build something that word-of-mouth alone cannot build as quickly — a body of work that speaks for you, even in the rooms you are not in.
The Legal Practice Act and the LPC Code of Conduct do not stand in the way of this. Properly understood, they provide the framework within which it can be done with complete professional integrity. The gap in the rules is an invitation to exercise judgment, not a reason for silence.
The question is not whether you have something worth saying. Almost certainly you do. The question is whether the right people can find it.
Want to go further? Download the free Humanicate guide — Finding Your Voice: A Practical Guide for Advocates Navigating the Digital Age — available at humanicate.co.za
