The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has suspended a lawyer, Olumide Tayo-Lawal from carrying on the trade or business of legal practice for a period of five years over professional misconduct.
A five-man panel of the LPDC comprising Justices Dr. Ishaq Bello, Life Bencher; (Chairman) and Aisha Bashir Aliyu, CJ Nasarawa, Bencher as well as Ahmed Mustapha-Goniri, Life Bencher; Ebenezer Obeya, Life Bencher and Mr. Obafemi Adewale (SAN), Life Bencher, held that Tayo-Lawal behaved in an infamous manner unbecoming of a lawyer.
Tayo-Lawal was further ordered to refund to the applicant, Dr Kenneth Soyemi, the sum of N3.1million, failure of which his name may not be restored after five years.
In the decision delivered October 9, 2023, the LPDC said : “We the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee hereby find the respondent, Olumide Tayo-Lawal with enrollment No SCN029927, a Legal Practitioner whose name is on the roll of Legal Practitioners, liable of infamous conduct in the course of the performance of his duty as a legal practitioner as set out in the application of the applicant contrary to Rules 1, 7, 14(1), 15, 16(c), 18(2) and 22 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap. L11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended).
“We are satisfied that the proper order to make in the circumstance is to direct that the respondent be, and is hereby suspended forthwith from carrying on the trade or business of legal practice or a legal practitioner for a period of five years from the date of this direction in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22(b) of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee Rules, 2020 and all other enabling provisions.
“Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12(c) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004 (as amended) and Rule 22(c) of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee Rules, 2020, the respondent is further ordered to refund to the applicant the sum of N3, 100,000.00 only forthwith.
” Failure on the part of the respondent to refund the said sum within a period of three months from the date of this direction will be considered in deciding whether or not to restore his name to the roll of Legal Practitioners at the end of the suspension period.”
The Committee, therefore, directed the Chief mhm Registrar of the Supreme Court to effect its orders and to make a notation of the direction against the name of the respondent on the roll of Legal Practitioners.
This order, it said, shall forthwith be brought to the attention of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court.
The body further ordered that notice of the decision should be published in any edition of the Punch Newspaper and also by publication in the Federal Gazette as required by law.
“Copies of this direction must also be served on the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) who will take steps to notify the General Council of the Bar, National Executive Committee and other organs of the NBA of the direction of this Committee.
“We also direct that the entire judgment encompassing this direction shall be brought to the attention of their lordships, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, the Honourable Chief Judges of the High Court of the FCT, Federal High Court, the High Court of all other States of the Federation and NIC of Nigeria, President of the Customary Court of Appeal of all the States of the Federation and the FCT, the Customary Court of all the States of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the entire Attorneys General of the remaining 36 States of the Federation.
“The order shall also be served on the Inspector-General of Police, the Commissioner of Police of Lagos State and the respective Commissioners of Police in the other states of the federation,” the Committee held.
The applicant had in a complaint marked BB/LPDC/401/2021 claimed that the lawyer collected monies from him to file a civil suit and oversee a criminal charge against someone on his behalf by the police but failed to discharge those duties.
“The Committee holds that a lawyer cannot be a channel through which police officers are funded by complainants to carry out their constitutional and official duties.
“The Nigeria Police is statutorily funded to carry out and to perform its obligations under the law. Inducing clients to part with money to influence the police in any manner cannot be right.
“No matter the pressure put on a lawyer by a client who has the right to be desperate, a lawyer has it as his duty to do only those things the law and the Rules permit him to do.
“He is bound to advise the client appropriately and if the client insists on what is inappropriate, he may decline the brief – see Rule 15. In this instance, it was he that advised the client on the need to provide money to induce the police to work.
“The Committee notes that the applicant is a Nigerian based in the United States of America and obviously depended on the expert knowledge of the respondent on how to navigate the system in Nigeria.
“His advice and actions were not positive as the applicant later discovered,” LPDC declared.
(vitalnewsngr.com)
