Standing Surety: Caveat For Lawyers Against Standing Surety For A Client- An Addendum By: Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Standing surety: Caveat for Lawyers against standing surety for a client, a reader of the article had requested the views and submissions of the writer of this paper on ‘whether a lawyer can stand as surety for any of his family members or blood relatives, especially considering the provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules of Professional Conducts for Legal Practitioners, 2007-herein after referred to as RPC- and my submissions in that article?’ It is in responding to this legal question that this addendum is prompted and necessitated. First and foremost, the word ‘surety’ according to the Webster on-line Dictionary, means 1) Money that you give as a guarantee that you will do what you are legally required to do (such as to appear in court) 2.) Someone who agrees to be legally responsible if another person fails to pay a debt or to perform a duty’. Also see: the Black’s Law Dictionary Eighth Edition, at pages 1482 and 1483’. Furthermore, to re-produce the provisions of the RPC in Rule 37(1) of the RPC which provides thus’ Where a lawyer undertakes the defence of a person accused of a crime, he shall exert himself, by all fair and honourable means, to put before the court all matters that are necessary in the interest of justice,  but he shall not stand or offer to stand bail for a person for whom he or a person in his law firm is appearing’. (Underlining is the writer’s for emphasis). It was reasoning and submission of the writer of this paper in the earlier article made pursuant to this Rule of RPC that ‘From this provision of the RPC, it is submitted that it is unethical and unprofessional for a lawyer to stand or offer himself as a surety for a person for whom he or a person in his law firm (whether lawyer or non-lawyer staff) is appearing. It is also a form of misconduct by Rule 55(1) of the RPC. And it is submitted that it remains the professional duty of any lawyer who observes such breach to report same to the appropriate authority pursuant to Rule 55(2) of the RPC.’. Respectfully, these submissions made by the writer of this paper remain valid arguments and submissions and same are adopted for the purpose of this addemdum. Furthermore, in response to the question asked by the reader referred to above, the writer of this paper has further considered some scenarios as follows: (a) where there is only a lawyer in such family; (b) where there is more than one lawyer in the family. And in these two scenarios, one of the members of the lawyer’s family is the suspect. On the first scenario, it is the humble submission of the writer of this paper that where only a lawyer is in such family, the lawyer will be able to stand as surety for such member of his family provided that the lawyer is not the lawyer professionally representing him in the suit. Therefore, such lawyer will just be as an ordinary lay man who is standing as surety for the family member. The lawyer will have to submit to the normal procedures that a normal person who offers himself to stand as surety for any suspect will submit to and will not be regarded to as a lawyer. So, there is no need of submitting his call to bar certificate or any of his professional certificates to the law enforcement agencies as a condition. He must however, be able to meet up with all the laid down conditions for any normal or ordinary surety. It is then that he would not have violated the Rule 37 of the RPC and would not have committed any misconduct. So, the lawyer including his firm will dissociate himself  from holding the criminal brief of the family member and will have to engage the legal services of another external lawyer- may be a friend or a colleague (but with a different private office) or the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria or a Non-Governmental Agency rendering pro-bono legal services but who are lawyers. Furthermore, in respect to the second scenario where there are more than one lawyer in the family, it is the humble submission and suggestion of the writer of this paper that a lawyer from the family may stand as surety for the family member and comply with those submissions on the scenario one above, then, another lawyer with an external private law office or firm may stand for the family member as counsel or legal representative holding the criminal brief. Then, the Rule 37of the RPC will not have been committed and there will not be any commission of any misconduct. Furthermore, to emphasise the submissions of the writer of this paper in the earlier article on the purpose of the article against a lawyer standing as surety for a suspect, where the writer of this paper submitted that ‘This in the view of the writer of the writer is to the safe-guard of a lawyer placing the liability of his client who he does not know than in relation to his professional services to him and no more, and then, bring such liability on himself as a lawyer and then put himself and his family members in avoidable troubles arising from the crimes or offence of his client. The police will even inform the lawyer in a way of calming his tension that some other lawyers do stand surety, which is very unprofessional and unethical! Also, law offices/firms, should make the issue of standing a surety as a last warning to all their staff both lawyers and non-lawyers, including those on the National Youth Service Corps Primary Assignment and law school students attached to the law office/firm, as they carry out their official duties to the law offices/firms against standing as a surety, a core principle of the office!’. Finally, it is the belief of the writer of this paper that having submitted above, it is the view, respectfully and to the best of his knowledge and understanding that the reader’s question has been justly dealt with to the reader’s satisfaction. Nevertheless, the writer of this paper wishes to tender unreserved appreciation to the reader for his question raised and the time invested in reading the earlier article, with many thanks! e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com  ]]>