J.S.Okutepa SAN distinguishes the role of NBA and LPDC in the disciplining lawyers

In his words: ”NBA only investigate complaints against lawyers and LPDC determines what amounts to infamous conduct in professional respect. In NBA vs. Ndupu (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt.1475) 185 at 195-196, paras: G-A. The respondent a legal practitioner failed to served the petitioner with court process and also, hide the information from the Chairman of the Rent Tribunal. Furthermore, the donee of the power of attorney was not the owner of the property. The LPDC held thus: We are therefore of the view that a legal practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar ought to be the repository of good character, truthfulness, candour, trustworthy and above all honest. The respondent cannot be described in the circumstances with any of the above etiquette of the profession. Lawyers occupy a position of great responsibility and respect in the society and any lawyer that indulges in fraudulent and reckless behaviour in pursuit of his profession, in the manner in which the respondent has conducted himself will have no place to squat with the confines of the legal profession. Such a conduct can not be condoned and will not be condoned by this committee.” He also stated citing a supreme court holdings that it is an infamous conduct for a legal practitioner to hold client’s money without justification. According to him: ”In the case of Ndukwe vs. LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt.1026) 1 at 47-48, paras. G-E the Supreme Court said: It is an infamous conduct in a professional respect for a legal practitioner to hold on to a client’s money without justification after a demand for the money by the client. All right-thinking members of the Legal Profession must view such a misconduct with great concern not only for the protection of the public, particularly clients like the 2nd respondent, but also for the protection and preservation of the good name of the legal profession. In the instant case, the appellant admitted that he unjustifiably retained his client’s money and failed to deliver the same to his client despite her demands and petition against him. In the circumstance, the 1st respondent was right when it held that the appellant’s act amounted to an infamous conduct in a professional respect, and sanctioned him accordingly.” ”Also in NBA vs. Eseyin (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt.1475) 197 at 220-221, paras. C-F. The respondent was engaged by the petitioner to conduct cases. However, he did not prosecute the cases to their logical conclusions but instituted suits against the petitioner and deducted monies without agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner referred the matter to NBA who later referred it to LPDC. It was held thus: By the provision of Rules 16 (1)(c) of the Rules of Professional conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007, a Lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. In the instant case, the respondent was engaged by the petitioner to conduct a case for her which involved fraudulent withdrawal of #95,000,000 from the petitioner’s account. He abandoned the case and did not prosecute it, yet he charged the petitioner #10, 000, 000 for it and deducted the money from proceeds of judgment for a case he did not do. LPDC takes all circumstances into account to determine what conduct amounts to infamous conduct in professional respect. A lawyer is entitled to a hearing and to defend himself. As for copy of the sample of complaint of what amounts to infamous conduct in professional respect.” The learned silk further cited other notable cases that would clarify the issue better. The said cases are: NBA vs Moses (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt.1520) 366, NBA vs Atie (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt.1520) 394, NBA vs Kalejaiye (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt.1508) 393 and NBA vs Ekumaru (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt.1522) 154.]]>