LEGAL HUB

*REFUSAL TO PAY A LAWYER FOR LEGAL SERVICES IS A SLAP ON THE FACE OF LEGAL PROFESSION*

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has held that when a legal practitioner offers to any one his professional duties and it was not done pro bono publico, that is, done for free for public good, he is entitled to be paid his charges. The Apex Court stated that failure to pay for the legal services is a slap on the face of this prestigious profession of law. This position was taken by the Court in the recent case of *MR. ALLEN EGBE v. AYODEJI ODU (2024) 18 NWLR (Pt.1970) 567 at 294, paras. E-F IDRIS, J.S.C* where it was held thus:

“It is saddening reading through the record of appeal, because the entire case appears to be a clear slap on the face of the legal profession in its entirety. Why do I say so? The appellants engaged the services of a barrister called to the Nigerian Bar in 1986, and he represented them in court on several occasions. The respondent provided before the trial court several text messages sent by the appellants wherein the 1st appellant begged and pleaded for more time to pay up the sum of money owed the respondent as professional fees, which the appellants never denied.
The appellants have argued that since they paid for the filing fees and expenses (flight tickets, accommodation and transportation) incurred during the case, the respondent is only entitled to “something” for his professional fees. What a slap on the face of this prestigious profession of law!!!

The trial court, after thoroughly dissecting the case, awarded the sum of N12,000,000 in favour of the respondent, including 10% interest on same from 1st August 2008 till 21st May 2012 when the judgment was given, and a further 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum with effect from 21st May 2012 till the judgment sum is liquidated. The judgment of the trial court was delivered on the 21st of May 2012.

Exhibit “K” is the bill of charges wherein the respondent stated how his services were rendered to the appellants. The appellants have argued that the respondent had reported them to the police and had called the judgment he obtained from the lower court a fraud, and thus could not benefit from a judgment he had condemned as a fraud.

I am disappointed at the interpretation the appellants and their counsel (who is a senior member in legal profession) had given to the letter dated the 25th January, 2010 written by the respondent. I am of the firm opinion that the respondent did not refer to the consent judgment obtained from the lower court as a fraud. What the respondent said was that the appellants got another lawyer to sign as counsel for them so that the respondent would not benefit or lay claim to helping in getting the judgment and thus be entitled to remuneration. In effect, the respondent never referred to the consent judgment of the lower court as a fraud.

Also, the appellants have repeatedly argued that they got a lot of lawyers involved in the case, so they could not pay the respondent the sum of money he demanded for. The appellants must be informed that it was totally up to them to get as many lawyers as they desired to help in prosecuting their case. But it is absolutely ridiculous to think that because they got a lot of lawyers to work on their case, they should not be made to pay each and every lawyer for the services rendered. It is inconsequential that other lawyers had to join the team in prosecuting the appellants’ case. This is no doubt a common practice. As long as every lawyer is paid his professional fees, there is no problem.”