A Sign Board For Political Campaign Displaying A Robed Lawyer: A Violation Of The RPC?

Just yesterday, the 19th day of September 2018, the legal community was in the thick of arguments with respect to a signboard in Delta State in the South-South geo-political zone of Nigeria. The signboard features a female lawyer by the name Irone Rita who is vying for the senatorial seat of Delta South Senatorial district. The Board which graphical concept was brief with the slogan, “A NEW DAWN IS HERE AT LAST”, has become a subject of legal wrangle after it was sighted at the road side by some legal pedestrians. Some have argued that the display has brought the profession to disrepute, while others have also considered the act as a violation of the rule on advertisement. Still, on an attempt to fault the act, it has been canvassed that the said Irone has violated Rule 45 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2009, which restricts the use of lawyer’s robe. Was there any form of violation which is unethical under the extant laws? A look at the cited laws will help to appreciate the evaluation underneath. Rule 39 of the RPC deals with the restriction placed on advertisement in the legal profession. But to be precise, the relevant sub-rule that was perceived to have touched the present scenario is Rule 39 (2) (b) which states that: A lawyer shall not engage or be involved in any advertising or promotion of his practice of the law which – (b) is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession, or the Administration of Justice, or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute. The most likely argument against the supposed advertisement is that it is capable of bringing the legal profession to disrepute. This argument would have sufficed, and be more than convincing, but for the fact that the advertisement or promotion must be in support of the practice of the Law, the act cannot be said to be in violation of the cited Rule. The other Rule that has been cited to fault the act is Rule 45 (1) (2). The provision restricts the use of lawyer’s robe and provides thus: ”45. (1) Except with the permission of the Court, a lawyer appearing before a High court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court shall do so in his robes. (2) A lawyer shall not wear the Barrister’s or Senior Advocate’s robe – (a) on any occasion other than in Court except as may be directed or permitted by the Bar Council; or (b) when conducting his own case as party to a legal proceeding in Court; or (c) giving evidence in a legal proceeding in Court.” A careful examination of the said provision speaks of robing as it affects physical practice of the Law, that is to say, appearance in person; and, robing outside the court room as restricted and permitted by the Law. The scene under consideration seems not to be caught under the provision of the Law since the robed Irone’s case is simply a matter of pictorial display. Many lawyers have argued against the act, tagging it as unethical, howbeit, the truth remains that there happens to be no law describing such act as unethical. If the interpretation is that the act falls under the clause of ANY OTHER CASE, it then means that the pictures of robed lawyers cannot be displayed on the pages of magazines; newly called lawyers cannot keep their pictures taken at their call to bar ceremony; lawyers will be in violation for using such pictures as display–pictures. THE LAW IS NOT SUCH AN ASS. This cannot be the intention of the Law makers while drafting the Law. After all, the law regulates a lawyer and not a picture: it is NO LAWYER and not, NO PICTURE. In all, novel scenarios occur which the Law itself has not spoken anything about, but the reality is that such cases create room for the Lawmakers to consider some new introductions for reforms, if at all necessary. By Ebi Robert Co-Editor, TheNigerialawyer]]>