The
rules of professional conduct is made for the maintenance of the highest
standard of professional conduct etiquette and discipline in terms of the
constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association.
DEDICATION AND
DEVOTION TO THE CAUSE OF THE CLIENT – Rule 14
The
lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defence of the client’s rights and exertion of his utmost
learning and ability, to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him
save by the rules of law legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or
public unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty.
A
lawyer should take full instructions from the client before advising him. Advice
should be based on merit; a lawyer should always inform the client concerning
the progress of his case and where there is no conflict between the client and
the lawyer in respect of the exact instructions given to the lawyer, the
instruction of the client must prevail. It may be oral or written or both but
it is advisable that it should be in writing.
A lawyer shall inform the client
that his claim or defence is hopeless if he considers it to be so. Where an
action is statute-barred and counsel did not advise his client not to take the
action, he could be damnified in costs – Bello Raji v. X (1946) 18 NLR 74.
REPRESENTING CLIENTS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW – Rule 15
A lawyer may refuse to represent a client where he
believes his conduct to be unlawful even though it can be argued to be legal.
He shall also keep strictly within the law notwithstanding any plea or
instruction from the client, and if the client insists on a breach of law, the
lawyer shall withdraw his service.
REPRESENTING CLIENT COMPETENTLY – Rule 16
A lawyer shall not handle a legal matter which he is
not competent to handle without associating a lawyer with him who is competent
except the client objects or neglect a matter entrusted on him or handle a
legal matter without adequate preparation.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST –
Rule 17
A
lawyer has the duty not to disclose to his client any conflicting interest.
That is, a lawyer that has accepted a brief from his former client cannot use
it against him except where the client, after full disclosure, still wants the
lawyer he can act notwithstanding conflict of interest.
In some cases of conflicting interest; the brief must
be refused. A lawyer will not be permitted to act against his former client
when he has obtained confidential information while acting for him which would
be improper and prejudicial to use against him in the service of an adversary.
Otherwise, there is no rule that a lawyer cannot act against his former client
– Onigbongbo
community v. Minister of Lagos Affairs & 31 Others. In Re Chief FR.A. Williams 1972 2 U.I.L.R. 235 (SC).
Conversely, a judge
should not preside over a case in which he had previously served as counsel or
rendered legal advice unless he had fully disclosed this to the parties – Olue
v. Enenwali 1976 2 SC 23.
Counsel should not
represent himself in litigation since objectivity and detachment can hardly be
maintained – Egbe v. Adefarasin
1987 1 NWLR (Pt. 47).
AGREEMENT WITH CLIENT – Rule 18
A Client may terminate his brief to counsel at any
time when he no longer has confidence in him. A client can change his lawyer
whether for good cause or not. Where a counsel is debriefed, he owes the court
a duty to make a final appearance before the court for a formal withdrawal of
his representation – Okonedo - Egharegbarni v. Julius Berger Nig. Ltd
(1995) 5 N.W.L.R. (pt 398) 679 at 699.
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENCE OF A CLIENT- Rule 19
A lawyer must preserve his client’s confidence
in the performance of his duty and must not disclose any information without
his client’s consent – R v. Egbuabor (1962) 1 All NLR 287 - Where
original and translated version of statement of accused to the police was being
produced and read in court, accused denied that it is correct. He said what he
told the police was that he was sick and could not get up. Defence Counsel then
said "I do not object to the statement being tendered. My original
instruction was that accused went to tap palm wine on the day 'in
question". It was held in fairness to counsel it should be said
that apart from this lapse he seems to have done his best for the appellant,
and we do not suggest that he was guilty of any conscious dereliction of his
duty to his client. That cannot alter the fact that by his unauthorized
disclosure and his abstention from cross-examination he implied that he himself
doubted if the evidence to be given by his client was to be relied on, and it
was a miscarriage of justice, as understood in this country that he should
have continued to represent the appellant without the appellant’s being aware
that the counsel to whom he looked to present his case had, from his point of
view, gone over to the enemy.
In the circumstances we consider
that the conviction must be set aside, but there was a substantial case against
the appellant, and the order we make is that the conviction is quashed and the
appellant is to be retried before another Judge of the Western Region High
Court.
Section 170(1) of the Evidence Act has to do with professional communication. It provides
that “no legal practitioner shall at any time be permitted, unless with his
client’s express consent, to disclose and communication made to him in the course
and for the purpose of his employment as such legal practitioner by or on
behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document
with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his
professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client
in the course and for the purpose of such employment; provided that nothing in
this section shall protect from disclosure – (a) any such communication made in
furtherance of any illegal purpose. (b) any fact observed by any legal
practitioner in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or
fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.”
The exceptions to this rule is:
1)
It
does not extend to suppression of a crime or fraud – Annesley v. Earl of Anglesea
(1743) L.R.Q.B 317.
2)
If
the information is not a confidential nature.
3)
If
it is meant to be communicated to a 3rd party.
4)
If
a legal practitioner is accused by his client.
5)
If
the communication is of an illegal purpose.
Follow @wingrassnews
No comments:
Post a Comment