Not for us
The present administration, in its bid to do things differently, respect the rule of law (equality before the law) and fight against corruption has put the judiciary in the limelight (or should I say ‘media light’). This can be seen from the trial of the Senate President i.e the number three citizen of Nigeria, Bukola […]
The present administration, in its bid to do things differently, respect the rule of law (equality before the law) and fight against corruption has put the judiciary in the limelight (or should I say ‘media light’). This can be seen from the trial of the Senate President i.e the number three citizen of Nigeria, Bukola Saraki, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, the nullification of the gubernatorial elections of Rivers, Taraba, Akwa Ibom and now Senator David Mark, the death of Kogi gubernatorial aspirant of the All Progressives Congress (APC) which gave rise to a new legal loophole never experienced before in our country.
These events have brought legal practitioners into the media spotlight, giving television interviews and radio talk shows in order to proffer legal opinions on the happenings in the country, with the resultant effect being different legal opinions on the issues. These led to some unethical behaviours on the part of some lawyers.
On alking out on a sitting court or tribunal, Rule 31(1) Rules of Professional conduct for legal practitioners states: “A lawyer shall always treat the court with respect, dignity and honour.”
While it may be true that the senior advocates who walked out on the code of conduct tribunal sought leave to withdraw their appearance and had every right to leave the court, this writer would not advice young wigs to follow suit, even if a ruling is not in your favour.
Using the media to disparage the judgment of the court: Rule (33) Rules of Professional Conduct states: “A lawyer or law firm engaged in or associated with a civil action shall not, while litigation is anticipated or pending in the matter, make or participate in making any extra-judicial statement that is calculated to prejudice or interfere with, or is reasonably capable of prejudicing or interfering with, the fair trial of the matter or the judgment or sentence thereon.” In simple terms, no lawyer should make a statement in public to prejudice the ruling or judgment of the court.
Whether it is true that the word ‘judicial rascality’ was said to newsmen or not, this writer cannot say, be it as it may, young wigs that find themselves being interviewed by newsmen after proceedings should not disparage the ruling or judgment of the court in public, it is not for us, no matter how dissatisfied one is with the ruling of the court.
Trading insulting words to fellow colleagues; Rule 26 (1) Rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners states: “Lawyers shall treat one another with respect, fairness, consideration and dignity, and shall not allow any ill feeling between opposing clients to influence their conduct and demeanor towards one another or towards the opposing clients.” It is however surprising that some lawyers now do name calling because of their differences in legal opinion, forgetting that there are always two sides to a coin, two brilliant and intellectual gifted lawyers can differ on the provisions of the law. As a matter of fact, two lawyers with different opinions of the law is what makes litigation thrive, so why take it personal because one lawyer doesn’t agree with a legal solution advocated by another lawyer?
While these are not exhaustive lists of unethical acts portrayed by seniors in recent times, these however do stand out, the intent of this discussion is to point out acts not meant for young lawyers, no matter the pressure or passion attached to a case.
The future of the profession lies in our hands. We can make it different and better if we act differently.
Godspeed.
Do send your comment (s), observation (s) and recommendation (s) [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or like us on www.facebook.com/younglaywerscolumn <http://www.facebook.com/younglaywerscolumn>