Online Reporter
Samukeliso Ndlovu, Correspondent
Zimbabwe’s legal profession has spent years treating digital visibility as a regulatory risk. But the rules already allow far more communication than many firms realise — and the cost of remaining invisible is growing.
The legal profession is caught in a misunderstanding it has never fully resolved. Many firms still operate as though advertising and public visibility remain prohibited, despite the Law Society of Zimbabwe’s own rules permitting carefully framed publicity since 1996.
The result is a profession divided between a small number of firms that have embraced digital visibility and a much larger majority that remain silent. Of the 805 firms listed nationwide, close to 95 percent publish little or no meaningful content online, despite operating in a country with more than six million internet users.
Law is not a back-office function. It shapes decisions on property, employment, family matters, inheritance, business formation and constitutional rights. Every day, Zimbabweans make choices where access to the right legal expertise can determine outcomes. Yet the profession responsible for guiding those choices remains largely invisible to the very people who need it.
That silence has consequences. Clients, businesses, institutions and potential employees increasingly begin their search online before making contact. A firm that cannot be found cannot be considered. The instruction may go elsewhere. The referral may go elsewhere. The graduate may apply elsewhere. Often, the firm will never know what it lost.
Referrals and professional networks remain important and will continue to play a central role in legal practice. But clients are no longer waiting for recommendations before they start researching. They search for expertise, sector knowledge and evidence that a firm understands their challenges. A credible digital presence is no longer simply a marketing tool; it is part of how firms enter consideration.
The misreading
The misconception largely stems from a misunderstanding of the rules governing legal advertising.
Section 23(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] lists touting and advertising among acts that may constitute unprofessional conduct. The 2018 Code of Conduct By-laws (SI 37 of 2018) reinforces this position through By-law 3. However, both provisions contain the same important qualification: they operate “subject to such guidelines as are duly published by Council from time to time.”
Those guidelines exist. The Law Society of Zimbabwe’s 1996 Revised Guidelines on Advertising and Marketing for Legal Practitioners provide a framework that allows publicity while maintaining professional standards.
The gap between perception and reality is reflected in the profession’s digital footprint. Of the 805 firms listed across 34 towns in the Law Society’s national directory, roughly 60 percent have no identifiable digital presence. Another 25 percent have only basic profiles containing little more than a logo, address or contact details. Fewer than one in five maintain an active website, and fewer than one in twenty regularly publish professional content.
Geography deepens the challenge. Harare accounts for 526 firms, almost two-thirds of the national total, while Bulawayo accounts for 76. Outside these centres, legal services are more dispersed and referral networks are often weaker. In these markets, where being discoverable matters most, professional silence is most costly.
What the regulator actually said
The Law Society of Zimbabwe’s 1996 Revised Guidelines on Advertising and Marketing for Legal Practitioners are more permissive than many practitioners realise. In fact, they do more than simply allow publicity — they establish a framework for responsible professional visibility.
Guideline 2.1 states that a practising legal practitioner “may in his discretion publicise his practice, or permit another person to do so on his behalf, provided the publicity complies with the provisions of these guidelines.” The starting point is therefore not silence, but professional judgment within defined boundaries.
The guidelines also permit firms to communicate their expertise. Guideline 4.8.2 expressly allows a firm to describe itself as “a leading firm” or a “specialist or expert” in a particular area of law, provided such descriptions are not misleading.
A second misconception concerns media engagement. Guideline 11.2.1 makes clear that a practitioner does not require prior approval from the Society to appear on radio or television, deliver talks to lay audiences, write for the press or participate in media interviews. The guideline states: “The consent of the Council is not required by a legal practitioner intending to take part in any of these activities.”
Together, these provisions address both sides of professional communication: firms may engage existing clients and make themselves visible to potential clients, provided they remain accurate, dignified and compliant.
The Society’s approach has continued to evolve with technology. In August 2023, it issued Virtual Practice Guidelines alongside an ICT policy and cyber-security risk mitigation guide for law firms. These measures acknowledge a reality the profession can no longer avoid: legal practice increasingly operates in a digital environment.
For firms that continue to argue “we are not allowed to,” that position is increasingly difficult to sustain.
What touting actually looks like
The prohibition on touting exists for a specific reason: to prevent unethical solicitation, improper influence and commercial arrangements that undermine professional independence. It was never intended to make lawyers invisible.
The distinction matters.
In April 2023, the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal considered The Law Society of Zimbabwe v Mugadza (ZWHHC 244 of 2023). The matter involved a practitioner who was on a major bank’s panel for debt collection and conveyancing work.
Over more than two years, the practitioner made 35 payments totalling nearly US$35 000 to a bank employee responsible for allocating work. The payments were structured to disguise their purpose, and the respondent pleaded guilty before the Tribunal.
This is the type of conduct the rules seek to prevent: kickbacks, hidden referral arrangements and payments designed to obtain professional work improperly.
The 1996 Guidelines define touting in similarly specific terms. It includes directly soliciting clients, entering arrangements where benefits are exchanged for introductions, or approaching individuals already represented by another practitioner with the intention of taking over their matters.
The Tribunal also relied on the South African case Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope v Berrange, where an attorney received payments exceeding R500 000 from estate agents for referred conveyancing work disguised as marketing arrangements. The court found that the conduct amounted to improper solicitation and suspended the attorney for two years.
A law firm publishing an article explaining a legislative change, commenting on a judgment or sharing legal analysis bears no resemblance to these examples. Professional education or visibility is not touting.
The international consensus
Zimbabwe’s cautious approach to digital visibility is increasingly out of step with global professional standards.
In May 2014, the International Bar Association adopted its International Principles on Social Media Conduct for the Legal Profession. The document does not question whether lawyers should participate online; it recognises that they already do. It notes that social media provides a platform for legal professionals to promote the administration of justice by engaging the public in legal practice and debate.
The principle is important: digital engagement is not merely a marketing exercise. It can be part of a profession’s responsibility to improve public understanding of the law.
Regional practice has followed a similar path. In 2012, Kenya’s High Court declared the country’s blanket ban on legal advertising unconstitutional. The Law Society of Kenya subsequently introduced the Advocates (Marketing and Advertising) Rules of 2014, allowing advocates to publish information such as firm identity, qualifications, contact details and legal publications, while maintaining restrictions against misleading claims, promised outcomes and aggressive solicitation.
The lesson is not that legal advertising should become unrestricted. It is that regulators can draw a clear line between professional communication and improper solicitation.
Globally, the profession has already moved in this direction. Zimbabwe’s regulatory framework provides room for the same evolution; the challenge is that many practitioners have not taken advantage of it.
What the silence actually costs
Zimbabwe does not yet have local research measuring the commercial cost of legal firms remaining digitally invisible. However, evidence from comparable professional services markets suggests that visibility influences client decisions.
A 2026 survey by JD Supra and LIMELIGHT of nearly 200 in-house counsel and C-suite executives found that published legal analysis influenced firm selection for many respondents, with some hiring firms specifically because of content they had produced. Research from Passle similarly found that clients expect firms to keep them informed about legal developments and frequently assess firms through their published insights.
The broader lesson is straightforward: expertise that remains unseen cannot influence decisions.
Zimbabwe had 6,45 million internet users at the start of 2025. Potential clients, journalists, businesses and future employees are already online, searching for information and assessing credibility. The firms they seek often are not there.
Visibility does not guarantee instructions. But invisibility guarantees missed opportunities.
A firm that publishes thoughtful, accurate analysis demonstrates expertise before a potential client ever makes contact. A firm that says nothing leaves others to define the conversation.
What firms should do now
The solution is not aggressive marketing or abandoning professional standards. It is a more accurate understanding of what the rules permit and a deliberate approach to professional visibility.
Audit your digital footprint: Search your firm’s name online and assess what potential clients, journalists, businesses and graduates will find. Is the information accurate? Does the website function properly on a mobile device? Is the firm’s expertise clearly communicated? For many firms, the first step is identifying how invisible they have become.
Claim and update professional listings: Basic visibility starts with accurate information. Google Business Profile, the Law Society of Zimbabwe directory and relevant professional listings should reflect current addresses, contact details, practice areas and firm information. These are simple steps that improve discoverability without raising compliance concerns.
Build a functional website, not a digital brochure: A firm’s website should answer basic questions: Who are you? What do you do? Who are the practitioners? How can a client contact you? It should serve as a reliable reference point for clients, businesses, journalists and prospective employees.
Publish within the rules: The 1996 Guidelines do not only permit commentary on legal developments; they provide space for it. Guideline 11.4 encourages practitioners to write and contribute on legal matters. A partner who understands developments in tax, employment law, corporate regulation or constitutional matters should be sharing that expertise.
Regular, accurate commentary builds credibility over time. A single article may not transform a firm’s profile, but consistent professional insight creates a body of work that demonstrates competence.
Make partners visible on professional platforms: LinkedIn and similar professional networks provide opportunities for lawyers to share analysis, comment on judgments and explain legal developments. This is not solicitation, it is professional engagement.
A practitioner discussing a new statutory instrument or explaining the implications of a court decision is contributing to public legal understanding, not engaging in touting.
Invest in communications capability: Legal expertise and communication expertise are different disciplines. Turning complex legal concepts into clear, accessible and compliant content requires skill.
Communications professionals, digital content managers and reputation advisers should not be viewed as unnecessary costs. For modern firms, they are increasingly part of building trust, strengthening reputation and ensuring expertise reaches the audiences who need it.
Create internal compliance processes: Firms should establish simple review mechanisms for digital content. A senior partner or designated compliance adviser can ensure publications align with professional standards. The purpose should not be to prevent communication, but to give practitioners confidence to engage.
Samkeliso Ndlovu is a strategic communications professional specialising in reputation management and public affairs. She advises corporate, legal and governance sector clients on communications strategy
derick.khumalo