FIJ
Ola Faro, a legal practitioner from the law firm of Afe Babalola, has petitioned the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), to strike out Dele Farotimi’s name from Nigeria’s roll of legal practitioners.
Writing the petition on behalf of the law firm, Faro narrated his employer’s grievances against Farotimi in a 90-page document dated December 6.
Farotimi published Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System where he chiefly accused Babalola of corrupting some justices of the Supreme Court. A portion of this book is now the subject of several criminal and civil lawsuits in Ekiti and Oyo states as well as in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The LPDC is a creation of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) and it was set up to regulate and enforce legal practice rules in Nigeria.
Among other issues, Faro alleged that Farotimi discussed a pending case with a judge; treated fellow lawyers “without respect, fairness, consideration and dignity”; participated in the conduct of bribing judicial officers; aided his clients in acting illegally; made false statements about a matter already decided by the apex court; and took steps to frustrate a decision of the Supreme Court, according to TheCable.
HOW DOES THE LDPC WORK?
FIJ reviewed the LPA to simplify how the body operates and some of the issues that could be decided through its disciplinary powers.
The committee considers unprofessional conduct such as misbehaviour in court, mismanagement of client’s funds, conflict of interest and failure to perform professional duties.
Depending on the type of infamous conduct a lawyer has committed and the evidence available, the LDPC could apply the following sanctions or penalties: suspension for a certain period, financial punishment, admonition and striking out of the person’s name from the roll of lawyers.
RULES OF MISCONDUCT
According to Section 11 of the LPA, offences which could attract the penalties mentioned earlier include a lawyer’s conviction by a court in Nigeria, the fraudulent input of one’s name in the roll call of lawyers or commission of an act incompatible with the status of a lawyer.
Once a petition is filed and referred to a panel, the panel would send a copy to the accused lawyer to respond to the allegations and provide evidence where necessary.
In determining the merit of any petition, the committee conducts its proceedings in such a manner as a civil court and as prescribed by the Evidence Act, inviting and listening to witnesses, and admitting documentary evidence to assist it in coming to a conclusion as to the truth of the allegations or otherwise.
Not in all cases is misconduct established via a petition. In such an instance, Section 17 and Section 18 of the LPA state that cases “not amounting to an infamous conduct” require the panel to prescribe a penalty that is consistent with the Act.
A lawyer against whom no misconduct has been proven could be ordered “to pay the costs of the proceedings if, having regard to his conduct and to all the circumstances of the case.”
The cases instituted against Farotimi so far are largely premised on defamation. While the LPDC may not strike out a lawyer’s name from the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria over defamation, the petition to the LPDC has brought up new elements that extend beyond Babalola’s personal reputation.
For example, the allegation that Farotimi “indicated that he discussed a pending case with a judge trying the case in the absence of an opposing lawyer. Assisted his clients in a conduct that he knew to be illegal and fraudulent. Knowingly engaged in illegal conduct in the cause of his practice as a legal practitioner” does not touch on Babalola’s reputation but something that could be tantamount to professional misconduct if proven before the panel.
In addition to the LPA, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners regulates legal practitioners’ conduct and relationship with their clients. This regulation prohibits a lawyer from discussing an ongoing case with a judge, an ethical issue which Faro has raised in his petition.
“Except where the opposing lawyer fails or refuses to attend and the judge is advised of the circumstances, a lawyer shall not discuss a pending case with a judge trying the case unless the opposing lawyer is present,” Section D (4) of the regulation states.
In Section B (15) (2) (a) and (b), it places a duty of preventing a client from committing misconduct on a lawyer.
It states that a lawyer shall “keep strictly within the law notwithstanding any contrary instruction by his client and, if the client insists on a breach of the law, the lawyer shall withdraw his service”.
A lawyer is also expected to “use his best endeavours to restrain and prevent his client from committing misconduct or breach of the law with particular reference to judicial officers, witnesses and litigants and if the client persists in his action or conduct, the lawyer shall terminate their relations”.
Depending on the outcome of the petition, the LPDC could apply any of the available sanctions earlier highlighted against Farotimi, the heaviest of which is disbarment.
THIS STORY FIRST APPEARED IN FIJ
