Pl. Ap. 19e-20a

[NateD26]

τούτων γὰρ ἕκαστος, ὦ ἄνδρες, οἷός τ᾽ ἐστὶν ἰὼν εἰς ἑκάστην τῶν πόλεων τοὺς νέους—οἷς ἔξεστι τῶν ἑαυτῶν πολιτῶν προῖκα συνεῖναι ᾧ ἂν βούλωνται—τούτους πείθουσι τὰς ἐκείνων συνουσίας ἀπολιπόντας σφίσιν συνεῖναι χρήματα διδόντας καὶ χάριν προσειδέναι.
I translated this way:
For each of these men, o jurists, has the ability of going to each of the cities (to persuade) the youths – for whom it's possible to associate freely with whomever they wish of their own cities – they persuade these (young) men to associate with them, leaving the societies of those cities, paying [them], and to owe [them] thanks besides.

I have two questions:
1. Would ἑαυτοῖς have delivered the same meaning of σφίσιν, i.e. referring reflexively to the three educators whom Socrates has mentioned in the previous sentence, or would it have referred to the youths (which of course wouldn't have made sense)?
2. Does ἐκείνων refer to τῶν ἑαυτῶν πολιτῶν?

[modus.irrealis]

You translated πολιτῶν as if it were from πόλις rather than πολίτης.

1. Would ἑαυτοῖς have delivered the same meaning of σφίσιν, i.e. referring reflexively to the three educators whom Socrates has mentioned in the previous sentence, or would it have referred to the youths (which of course wouldn't have made sense)?

It could refer to the educators -- ἑαυτοῦ can be a direct and indirect reflexive (see Smyth 1218 and onwards).

2. Does ἐκείνων refer to τῶν ἑαυτῶν πολιτῶν?

That's the only possibility I can see.

[NateD26]

Thanks, modus.
I have read a bit of these sections in Smyth before posting my question but I did not understand much of what I read.
in 1228 N.3 he states exactly what you wrote, that ἐαυτοῦ can be either direct or indirect reflexive, but
οἷ and σφίσιν are only indirect ones.
Just so it'd be clearer for me, please: a direct reflexive refers to the subject in the same sentence/clause,
an indirect reflexive refers, in a dependent clause, to the subj. in the main one.
So here, σφίσιν συνεῖναι is the dependent clause and the indirect reflexive refers to the subject of the verb in the main one, τούτους πείθουσι.
Is that correct?

[modus.irrealis]

Exactly. One thing that I find helpful is that in the modern languages I'm familiar with, it works out that indirect reflexives correspond to normal non-reflexive pronouns, so the distinction is made, although in a different way.