Employment Is No Shield: Why Lawyers Cannot Evade Professional Responsibility Through Vicarious Liability – Tips To Avoiding The Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee

By Ataguba S. Aboje, Esq

As someone who has served as a prosecutor for the Nigerian Bar Association before the esteemed Body of Benchers’ Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, I have witnessed firsthand the grave consequences that can befall legal practitioners who fail to uphold the ethical standards imposed upon them at their call to the Bar. Unfortunately, far too many lawyers who find themselves facing disciplinary action seem to fundamentally misunderstand the solemn oath they took and the profound responsibilities that come with joining this distinguished profession. The legal profession is unique in its demands and is set apart from other vocations by the onerous ethical burdens placed upon its members. The privilege of being called to the Bar comes at a price – an unwavering commitment to integrity, competence, and a steadfast dedication to the principles of justice and the rule of law. It is a sobering reality that those who cannot live up to these lofty ideals risk having their hard-earned careers abruptly terminated through disbarment. My time as a prosecutor has impressed upon me the critical need for lawyers to truly internalize and embody the ethical obligations bestowed upon them, lest they suffer the harsh consequences of professional misconduct.

It is therefore no secret that the legal profession is governed by a stringent set of rules and ethical guidelines designed to uphold the integrity of the practice and safeguard the interests of clients and the public. Among these rules is the concept of individual professional responsibility, which stands in contrast to the notion of vicarious liability commonly applied in employer-employee relationships. This article delves into the intricate relationship between vicarious liability and the legal practitioner, examining the unique nature of the legal profession and the rationale behind holding individual lawyers accountable for their professional conduct, regardless of their employment status.

Before exploring the applicability of vicarious liability, it is imperative to understand who a legal practitioner is. A legal practitioner, also known as a lawyer or an attorney, is a professional who has undergone rigorous training and met the requisite qualifications to provide legal advice and representation in legal matters. In Nigeria, the Legal Practitioners Act serves as the governing legislation, stipulating that for an individual to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor, their name must be duly enrolled on the roll maintained by the Supreme Court.

The Call to the Bar ceremony, a pivotal moment in a legal practitioner’s journey, is more than just a symbolic ritual. It is during this ceremony that each prospective lawyer takes an oath, individually affirming their commitment to upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and ethical behaviour. This solemn pledge underscores the personal nature of a lawyer’s responsibilities, laying the foundation for the argument that professional accountability cannot be easily transferred or deflected.

The Rules of Professional Conduct, established by various legal bodies and associations, serve as the guiding principles that shape the behaviour and decision-making processes of legal practitioners. The General Council of the Bar in Nigeria is responsible for making and revising the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for lawyers in Nigeria. These rules cover a wide range of areas, including client confidentiality, conflict of interest, ethical advertising, and maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

At the core of these rules lies the fundamental principle that a legal practitioner is individually responsible for their professional acts, except in instances where such acts are carried out in collaboration with other lawyers. This principle directly challenges the notion of vicarious liability, which is premised on the existence of a master-servant relationship, a concept that does not accurately reflect the dynamics of legal practice.

The position that legal practitioners cannot escape liability for professional misconduct by relying on their employment status can be extrapolated from numerous judicial decisions. In the landmark case of Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 570, the court unequivocally stated that a legal process signed and issued by a law firm, rather than an individual legal practitioner, is incompetent and liable to be set aside. The court further emphasized that all processes utilized in court proceedings must be signed and issued by a person enrolled to practice law under the Legal Practitioners Act.

Another notable case, Okwuosa v. Gomwalk & Ors (2017) LPELR-41736(SC), further solidified this principle. In this case, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision that had allowed a Notice of Appeal signed by “Miskom Puepet & Co.” instead of an individual legal practitioner’s name. The court cited the precedent set in Reg. Trustees of Apostolic Church Lagos Area v. Akindele (1967) NMLR 263, which held that a legal practitioner’s signature must include their individual name, even if preceded by the name of the firm in which they practice.

The decision of the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) between Ojo v. Umar (2024) 4 N.W.L.R Part 1927 Page 145 At 167 Paras F-G is also applicable, The LPDC stated emphatically that “The rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners F were made for individual lawyers to comply with in carrying out their obligations as lawyers. At the call to the Bar ceremony, each applicant for call to the Bar is sworn in individually and takes his oath as such. A lawyer is therefore responsible for his professional acts except where he carries out the act(s) in conjunction or in collaboration with other lawyers. Unlike in normal civil master and servant or, contract of employment cases, the concept of vicarious liability by a third party for an individual’s professional conduct cannot therefore arise”.

The rationale behind these decisions is rooted in the need to ensure accountability and responsibility among legal practitioners. By requiring that court processes be signed and issued in an individual’s name, rather than that of a law firm, the legal system aims to prevent situations where professional misconduct could be obscured or diluted by the involvement of an abstract entity.

While some may argue for a more lenient interpretation of the legal provisions governing legal practitioners’ conduct, the courts have consistently favoured a purposive approach to interpretation. This approach recognizes that the purpose of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act is to ensure that only qualified and accountable legal practitioners, whose names are on the roll, can practice the profession.

The purpose of these provisions is not merely a matter of procedural formality; rather, it serves to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession and prevent the infiltration of unqualified individuals masquerading as legal practitioners. By adhering to a strict interpretation of these sections, the courts uphold the spirit of the law, ensuring that legal processes are handled with the utmost responsibility and accountability.

In the intricate tapestry of the legal profession, the concept of vicarious liability has limited applicability when it comes to the professional conduct of legal practitioners. The unique nature of the legal practice, combined with the solemn oath taken by lawyers and the stringent Rules of Professional Conduct, create a framework in which individual accountability is paramount.

Legal practitioners cannot escape liability for professional misconduct by relying on their employment status or the involvement of a law firm. They are individually responsible for their actions and must exercise utmost caution and diligence in adhering to the ethical guidelines that govern their profession.

The mantle of responsibility borne by legal practitioners is an individual and non-transferable burden. As officers of the court, lawyers must maintain an unwavering commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards, regardless of the circumstances or pressures they may face. Employment by a law firm or adherence to instructions from superiors can never serve as a valid defence or mitigating factor when allegations of professional misconduct arise. When summoned before disciplinary bodies such as the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, a lawyer cannot seek refuge in the guise of vicarious liability or claim to have been merely following orders. The Rules of Professional Conduct apply with equal force to every member of the legal profession, irrespective of their position within a firm’s hierarchy or the nature of their employment relationship. This principle underscores the fact that each legal practitioner is individually accountable for their actions, decisions, and adherence to the ethical tenets that govern the profession. Neither the dictates of an employer nor the directives of a senior colleague can absolve a lawyer of their personal obligation to maintain integrity, honesty, and a steadfast dedication to the principles of justice and the rule of law. It is a sacred duty that transcends transient loyalties or temporary allegiances, and one that must be upheld with the utmost diligence and moral fortitude.

Written by Ataguba Aboje, Esq

Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, Certified Information Privacy Europe (CIPP/E)

Notary Public, ataguba.aboje@aandgsolomon.com

Linkedin l Twitter @attaguba  l Instagram @attaguba