By Chinedu Agu
Last month, I lost two briefs bordering on preparation of legal instruments that convey title. One was for a land purchased at 28 million, while the other was for another land purchased at 70 million. The donors in these transactions were my good friends to whom I provide free legal advice through either casual phone calls or at social gatherings.
The first had sent me details for the preparation of an instrument after he told me that I almost “missed” this brief because he had contacted “one of his guy” [sic], not being sure I was in the country. And now that I am in the country, how lucky a man I am, he must have reasoned!
Certainly, this “one of his guy” had agreed fees with him for #75,000.00, and I could sense his joy from his voice on the telephone, realising I was available for the brief. Probably, he reasoned he could price lower.
I told him that lawyers, as a matter of law, now charge 10% of the consideration of a property as professional fee for preparation of the legal instrument.
“Ah ah, since when, the Barr?” He queried.
“I came back and met it this way. And it is operational through out the country.” I responded.
He complained that 2.8m was too much for him to pay. I told him I could give him a rebate and take 5% based on relationship. But he was not having it. He told me that that “one of his guy”[sic] was ready to do it for #75,000, but that, “The Barr., a sịm ka m tụnyere gị as onye nke m [Barrister, I decided to patronise you as my own person],” repeating that condescending remark. “You are charging me very high, the Barr.” He kept protesting.
I explained that this was a matter of law, and that I could get into trouble if I charged him lower than that. He then asked if that “one of his guy” [sic] was also not a lawyer like me?
He then said, he would get back to me. I am still expecting that call till this evening.
I lost the 2nd brief in similar circumstance 2 days hence.
Heartbroken by that loss, I typed this long message which I am delivering today as a lecture, to post it on our NBA platforms to swear at that “one of my guy” [who probably is sitting here this evening] that condescendingly debriefed me.
While typing this, a colleague of ours with whom I share my lawyerly inspirations and ideas, Ikenna Ujah, called. I shared it with him on a long call. He shared with me his kindred experiences, and he thought our discussion could make a better lecture on ethics. He encouraged me to develop it and seek permission of the Chairman to deliver it as a Lecture during one of our meetings.
And so, this is how what was supposed to be a rant has metamorphosed into a Lecture. In that sense, this is more of a Rant-ure than a lecture.
When I stopped worrying about losing that 2.8million naira, the worry at how lay people regard lawyers and perceive legal services, replaced it, which now lingers.
Why do people who seek legal services have the impression that they are doing a lawyer a great favour for seeking those services?
Why do lay people who retain a lawyer for legal services assume they are trying to save the lawyer from impending hunger, or trying to lift him from a prolonged penury and squalor.
Why do lay people who pay for legal services rendered by a lawyer posture themselves as though it is almsgiving to the lawyer?
Expressing the idea that various professions, including law, operate in ways that protect their own interests at the expense of the general public, George Bernard Shaw, coined the expression “conspiracy against the laity” in his 1906 Play, “The Doctor’s Dilemma.”
In the said book, Shaw criticizes several professions beyond the medical field. He refers to the legal profession, describing it as a conspiracy similar to that of doctors. Additionally, he critiques the military, religious, educational, and artistic professions, suggesting that all these fields operate in self-interest at the expense of the public. Shaw argues that these professions collectively form conspiracies against the laity, obscuring their true motivations and shortcomings. He subsumes this in his popular quote, “All professions are conspiracies against the laity.”
This appears to be so, because of that air of esoterism and mysticism that envelopes many professions mentioned by Shaw. Law used to stand out in this.
Unfortunately, many of those professions have left the legal profession behind since that veil of esoterism was ripped and lifted by lawyers themselves.
The legal profession on losing its esoterism and reconditeness is now at the mercy of the laity, so that instead of the legal profession maintaining its flair and steaze that gives off this facade of conspiracy against the laity – which makes them hold us in high esteem – the laity is now rather the conspiracy against the legal profession. In a sense, we no longer hear, “Nwanyi gbalaga Dị gị n’ abịa, but Dị gbalaga Nwanyị gị n’ abịa.”
We lifted our veil of esoterism by ourselves through what I have chosen to coin as Professional See-finish-ism. And because the members of the laity have “seen us finish,” little regard is now placed on both legal profession and legal services. It is what a man calls his dog that his neighbours will refer to it as. _Judicial See-finish-ism did not also help matters, because members of the laity rarely differentiate between the judiciary and the Bar. To them, “all of una nah the same thing!”
A colleague told me about his experience at a time. His secondary school pal and classmate asked him to prepare Tenancy Agreements for 6 of his tenants in his building. And that when he was done, “Gị agwa m ihe m ga achọrọ gị” [When you are done, you tell me what I can help you with]. This didn’t sit well with him, and he quickly told him off. He lost that client for his good.
We must resist the lure to reduce our professional fee to alms.
Lawyers have by themselves made lay people to have the notion that legal services are not essential services. We cheapen legal services in several ways, thus making members of the public consider both lawyers and legal services as dispensable. This is not so with other professions.
A customer who walks into a pharmaceutical shop and buys as simple a medication as panadol, does not tell the owner of the shop, “I came to your shop to buy this because, “A chọrọ m I tụnyere gị” [I came to your shop to buy this medication just to support you]. After taking the panadol, he will also not tell him, “Gịnị ka m ga achọrọ gị maka ọgwụ a” [How much do I help you with for the medication]. This is regardless of the relationship between both of them.
A patient who walks into a hospital, and pays for his consultation, his card, does not, walk into the doctors office telling him he has come to “I tụnyere ya” [to support him], regardless of their relationship.
A man who stops by the roadside to vulcanise his tyre does not tell the vulcaniser that he passed several other vulcanisers, but has called in because he wants to support him.
A man who sends his car to the mechanic does not tell him that he has another mechanic close to his house, but has come to him because he wants to support him.
So it is with a man who consults a Surveyor; a sinner in need of grace who consults a priest; a man who consults an engineer; a commuter who enters the bus, etc.
The simple reason behind this is that these classes of individuals are considered to be providing services that are essential. So, the man who consults a Pharmacist, Doctor, Vulcaniser, Mechanic, Surveyor, Priest, Engineer, and Taxi driver does so because they cannot provide it to themselves. Unfortunately, lay people prepare legal instruments and bring to a lawyer who puts his stamp and seal and collects a pittance.
I am not able to exhaust the ways in which lawyers cheapen legal services. This is already contained in the lecture I delivered in May, titled, “The See-finish-ism Afflicting the Legal Profession.” But I can list a few others.
- By charging peanuts for legal services.
Legal Practitioners are often wont to charge peanuts for legal services in the hope of keeping or retaining that client.
The truth is that most things that come cheap are not valued by those who receive them. When, for instance a lawyer charges peanut to render a huge professional service, the client smiles home. But when a bigger brief comes, suddenly, something tells him that “this cheap lawyer” does not have the professional competence to handle this big brief. He will revert to that other lawyer from whose office he left angrily because of exorbitant fee.
There is no attempt here to suggest that services should be made unreasonably expensive. But remuneration for legal services ought to be commensurate with services.
I have met a client who once told me that he suspected the Power of Attorney prepared by his lawyer was a fake one. When I asked him the reason, he told me the lawyer prepared same for #10,000.00.
- Rendering legal services through proxy, who is not a lawyer.
This is the height of professional see-finish-ism.
A lawyer friend called me sometime to place an advert for him for the position of secretary. Then when I asked about the one I recommended to him barely 6 months before then, he narrated an experience to me, which goes thus:
He keeps his stamp and seal with his secretary. And his secretary has the responsibility of preparing legal instruments for him at all times, especially in his absence. She would also frank documents for him when he is not available.
One fateful day when his secretary left her phone in the office to do some filings in court on his request, a man walked into his office, requesting to see “Blessing,” his secretary.
He told the man to reach her on the phone, but the man said she was not picking up her calls, hence he decided to come. He handed to him three different Powers of Attorney, which Blessing gave him the previous day, which he has just returned for correction.
Trying so hard to mask his incredulity, the lawyer took the documents and asked him to return in 2hours, by which time Blessing would be back to correct them.
On perusing these documents, they were prepared with the name and seal of this lawyer, without his consent or knowledge. He would discover later that Blessing prepared those documents at fees higher than that of her boss!
The inevitable happened. Blessing got fired upon return from the court.
Have you observed that sometimes, while in the court premises with a lawyer, you would hear him screaming instructions at his secretary through the phone of a client, on where to stamp a document that has been brought for notarisation. “Check inside that drawer, you will see my notary stamp. Put one original stamp and seal on the document, only one seal o! Don’t waste my seal. Then take that red stamp with inscription ‘notarised by me’ and stamp under the lawyer’s seal. Then sign and put date. I mechaa ya, nata ya two thousand Naira” [Collect two thousand naira from him when you finish].”
At other times, you would hear a lawyer in a public place, bellowing instruction over the phone to a secretary to delegate lawyer’s work to her, “Blessing, check your Whatsapp, I have sent you details of the Power of Attorney for Mr. Anthony. Don’t forget to put my seal on only one cover page o.” In most situations, Mr. Anthony is there in the Chambers, standing infront of Blessing while her boss tells her what to do. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lawyer spoke to Blessing through his phone.
After preparing the Power of Attorney in his presence, Blessing will spiral-bind and do everything that was supposed to be done in private in the presence of Mr. Anthony. This is the reason some clients will tell you, “The Barr. enwekwerenu ihe nọ na ihe a [There is nothing difficult about this]. Just tell your Secretary to remove the name of the buyer and seller, and replace with mine. Is that what you are charging so much for?”
Some arrogant clients sometimes will tell you, “The Barr, Power of Attorney, is it not this one I can go and prepare in Garden Park.” Most times, most of these clients have the temerity to bring a Power of Attorney prepared by themselves and tell you, “The Barr, I have done all the work. Just put your stamp and seal for me make I give you 5kpa (Five thousand Naira], “a sị m ma atiiri gị. [I want to support you].” If there are no lawyers who oblige them, this system would have stopped long ago. Unfortunately it persists.
In a bid to curb affidavit touting and racketeering, which has now become very tolerable in our jurisdiction, the then Chief Judge of the State, Hon. Justice B.A. Njemanze, made a Practice Direction requiring that every, affidavit must be endorsed by the lawyer who prepared it. This endorsement shall include office address of the lawyer. A clerk of court approached me to endorse an affidavit which she prepared. When I refused, she was startled, telling me she approached me only because the lawyer who rendered such services for her was not in court premises that day. She told me that the bundle of paper which the lawyer had pre-endorsed for her had been exhausted.
When I doubted her, she convinced me that she would go to the lawyer’s office the following week and return with one full rim of pre-endorsed papers for affidavit preparation.
True to her promise, she showed me, and it was a lawyer called in the year 2002, who was not less than 15years at the Bar at the time. I also gathered that this lawyer performs that service to the majority of the judiciary staff within that premises for a paltry sum.
What makes the Shrew stink comes from the Shrew’s body! Lawyers have made themselves rats, and so are now pursued by Cats.
There is no other profession on earth that witnesses this level of condescending conspiracy and sabotage as much as the legal profession.
Have you noticed that in a transaction where a surveyor, architect, engineer, doctor and lawyer actively participated as agents [even though the courts have rightly held that this is unethical], it is only the lawyer that the agents will turn to and say, “The Barr, you no be agent for this transaction. You no go chop power of Attorney money, come chop agency money.” And if that lawyer does not stand his ground, he will be sidelined in the business.
But the surveyor in that transaction, who will subsequently conduct survey on the land, will not be sidelined because he has “chopped survey money.”
They will not sideline the architect, who will produce the plan of the house subsequently, because he has “chopped architect money.”
Nobody will tell the engineer, who will build the house later, “Engr, you no follow for agent, your work nah to build house for oga. You no go chop engineer money, come chop agency money.”
What have lawyers done wrong?
Lawyers must eschew those unprofessional/unethical practices that lower the standing of legal practitioners before the general public.
- Except in deserving circumstances, lawyers must not render legal services free to clients.
Those who do not genuinely deserve free legal services will exploit free legal services.
Free legal aid may lead to the perception that legal services are not valuable, which can undermine the respect and authority associated with the legal profession.
More so, if legal services are predominantly offered for free, clients may come to expect such services as the norm, potentially leading to a lack of appreciation for the expertise and effort involved in legal work. This can also blur the lines between legal practice as a profession and as a charity, affecting the premium members of the public attach to legal services.
- Create some air of esoterism around your legal services. You must not notarise documents in the presence of clients, or prepare a legal instrument and frank same in the presence of clients. It makes those services appear cheap.
- Never delegate legal services to non lawyers.
- Do not run after clients to render legal services to them. Do not tell your clients, “Chief, when you buy that land, remember say nah me go run the document.” Do not also tell your clients, “Chief, when you finish that building remember say nah your boy go manage am o.”
- As much as you need to be prompt with legal services, but do not render them as though they are “wait and take passports.” This is so especially with legal instruments.
- Always charge consultation fee, whether the consultation is by one-to-one interaction or telephone conversation.
I almost ran into trouble when I was making immigration inquiries from a UK Solicitor sometime. I called the office line, and the courteous secretary picked up. After pleasantries, I introduced the topic for which I called. She was straightforward with what I should do next, “Okay, Mr. Agu, what medium is most convenient for you in making payment for our consultation fee of £150.” I quickly ended the call and ran away. £150 only to ask questions bordering on immigration!
But the truth is, legal consultations ought to be paid for. A client who spends one hour on the phone with you or in your office will not value that time and services except when charged.
Annoyingly, in most circumstances, after wasting an hour of your time, they would brief another lawyer for the execution of the work. So, in order not to lose out entirely, charge consultation fee at the earliest possible time.
- Lawyers must learn how to appear clean and groomed. The competence of a shabbily-dressed lawyer is often brought under the microscope. A shabbily-dressed lawyer is also often priced very low. With a dirty and rickety car, unkempt appearance, you need to go extra mile to prove to your client that you are worth that high fees you have charged.
It doesn’t take affluence to make a white shirt clean. It doesn’t take affluence to make a car appear clean. It doesn’t take affluence to make an office appear clean and tidy. It doesn’t take affluence to polish a black shoe and keep it clean. It doesn’t take affluence to make bib and collar appear clean. It does not take affluence to wash the mouth and body in the morning before going to court. It only takes discipline and conscious efforts.
Regardless what a lawyer is going through, his appearance ought not reflect it. Even the scripture urges us not to look like our problems when it says, “When you fast, annoint your head with oil and wash your face.” [Matthew 6:17].
- Never borrow money from your client.
In my pupillage, my principal, Ama Akalonu, drummed this into our ears that it is better to borrow money from a colleague than a client, no matter how rich and generous he is.
- Never owe rent where you reside or maintain office.
- Never mis-apropriate client’s money you hold for him in trust.
Maintaining the flair and steeze of the legal profession is the only way to attract respect to the profession. It is time lawyers come to understand that the responsibility of retaining the prestige of the legal profession lies in our hands. The members of the public have conspired against us. The system has conspired against us. The least we can do for ourselves is to come together, and put in place systems that will make the practice of our profession lucrative, and resist every temptation to sabotage it.
[This lecture was delivered at the Monthly General Meeting of NBA Owerri on the 30th day of November 2024]
Chinedu Agu is a lawyer, and can be reached at [email protected] or 08032568512.
