Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), Cap L11, Laws
of the Federation of Nigerian (LFN), 2004, provides that “there
shall be a Committee of the Body of Benchers to be known as the
Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee … which shall be charged
with the duty of considering and determining any case where it is
alleged that a person who is a member of the legal profession has
misbehaved in his capacity as such or should for any other reason
be subject to its proceedings under this Act.” The Legal
Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) sits
as a tribunal or a civil court to determine cases of professional
misconduct against lawyers in Nigeria. Its decision is appealable
to a higher court (see section 12 (7) of the LPA. Decisions or
directions of the LPDC are binding on all legal practitioners in
Nigeria unless set aside on appeal (see s. 12 (8) LPA). Now, in the
case of NGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (NBA) v. OFOMATA,
reported in (2017) 5 NWLR (PT 1557) 128 at 133, the LPDC had held
that the use of “the appellation of ‘Barrister’ as a
title before the name of a legal practitioner is unprofessional and
improper; …”
In reaction to this ruling by the LPDC, I had made some comment
on a popular WhatsApp forum, which comment was later published in
some online media platforms, including nairalaw.com,
lawyard.ng and a host of others. The publication on www.lawyard.ng
on 19 April 2017 came under the caption, “ON THE RULING IN NBA
V. OFOMATA BANNING LAWYERS FROM USING THE TITLE ‘BARRISTER.’”
(see http://www.lawyard.ng/on-the-ruling-in-nba-v-ofomata-banning-lawyers-from-using-the-title-barrister-sylvester-udemezue/).
The said decision of the LPDC and my comment had then generated
some wider discussions among lawyers, especially on the social
media, as to the propriety or otherwise of use of the term
“barrister” as a prefix before a lawyer`s name, which discussions
culminated in a rejoinder by my respected learned friend, Bolaji
Ramos. The rejoinder, published on www.dnllegalandstyle.com, on 31
October 2017, came under the heading, “And What is Wrong in
Using the Title ‘Barrister’? (An Answer To Sylvester
Udemezue).” (see
https://www.dnllegalandstyle.com/wrong-using-title-barrister-answer-sylvester-udemezue-bolaji-ramos/)
I have read the case of NBA v. OFOMATA, my earlier comment and
now the rejoinder by Mr. Bolaji Ramos, and I honestly believe that
there is need to put out some more comments on the matter, by way
of a surrejoinder, so as to further put the issues
surrounding this debate in proper perspective and thus leave no one
in any doubt as to the correct position, which is that,
indeed, everything is wrong with use of
the word “barrister” as an honorific title before a lawyer`s
name. As I had earlier stated, such is not just wrong, but
irredeemably wrong, demeaning, awkward, unnecessary and now
unprofessional, from whichever angle one decides to look at it. I
shall now take the point one-by-one, to adequately deal with my
brother lawyer`s rejoinder, which I consider, with the greatest
respect, misplaced and lacking any legal, moral, professional,
grammatical or social foundation.
As I had earlier pointed out, use of the word “barrister” beside
a lawyer`s name is not in itself wrong nor unprofessional. Having
been duly called to the prestigious Nigerian bar and enrolled at
the Supreme Court as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court
of Nigeria, there is nothing wrong for a lawyer in Nigeria to
associate the term “barrister,” “solicitor,” “advocate,” legal
practitioner,” “lawyer,” or any related term with his name.
Precisely, there is nothing wrong with the following: (1)
“Robert Oke, Barrister-at-Law,” “Jide Obi, Barrister &
Solicitor,” “Ben Ade Musa, Solicitor & Advocate,” “Chuks
Adewale, Legal Practitioner,” “Amina Okon, Barrister.” There
is also nothing wrong if I run into a lawyer on my way to a meeting
and greet him in the following manner, “Good morning,
Barrister. Hope you are doing great.” These are not what this
argument is all about. This debate is as regards writing the name
of, or addressing, a lawyer in any one of the following forms,
“Barrister Amina Okon” or Barrister Ben Ade Musa.” This is
what I had in mind, as unambiguously expressed in the published
comment. Now, over to the matter at hand!
My learned friend, Mr. Bolaji Ramos, has “laughed off and
paid less attention to” the decision in NBA v. OFOMATA (supra)
because as he thinks that members of the court (LPDC)
“must have either been quoted out of context or
something must have gone wrong somewhere.” With due respect,
Sir, you are wrong! This introductory statement in your rejoinder
is a clear indication that you did not bother to read the judgment
of the LPDC in that case before you hastily ventured into your
rejoinder. If you had, you would have appreciated the reasons for
their opinions and you would not have been laughing off such a
serious matter.
Let me now go into the crux of Mr. Ramos`s submission. Hear Mr
Ramos: “An argument on the appropriateness or otherwise of the
use of the word has a strong bearing on three areas of interest:
(a.) professional practice; (b.) law; and (c.) grammar.”
THE POSTION OF LAW WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE
LEGAL PROFESSION
I agree to some extent with my learned friend, Mr. Ramos, that
the fons et origo of our professional conduct as lawyers
is the Rules of the Professional Conduct (RPC), 2007, made pursuant
to the Legal Practitioners Act. But my friend completely left out
section 22 (1) (b) of the LPA which is the relevant legal provision
on the matter at hand. Respecting the provisions of that section, I
had written as follows:
“While section 22 (1) (b) permits only lawyers to “take or
use the title of legal practitioner,” it does not say the later
should use the expression “legal practitioner” or “barrister” as a
title before his names. The proper interpretation of that paragraph
is that only a person duly qualified as a lawyer can hold himself
out as a legal practitioner by using that title.” (see http://www.lawyard.ng/on-the-ruling-in-nba-v-ofomata-banning-lawyers-from-using-the-title-barrister-sylvester-udemezue/).
Mr. Ramos forgot also that even though Courts of Law in reaching
their decisions, are guided by provisions of statutes. Yet, when
once a court has made some clear pronouncement on, or
interpretation of, a certain (provision of a) statute, the affected
legislation must thenceforth be interpreted and applied only in
line with such court pronouncement. This in other words means that
in any such situation, one is no longer entitled to apply or
interpret provisions of such statute without recourse to the
decision of court thereon. It is for this reason that
Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr has
declared in his book, The Path Of The Law, thus:
“The prophecies of what the courts will
do in fact, and nothing more pretentious,
are what I mean by
the law“ (see http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm).
The LPDC is a tribunal established by law, with a mandate to guide
lawyers in Nigeria as to what is or is not “unprofessional” and
also regarding what action or omission by a legal practitioner
amounts or does not amount to a “misconduct.” The LPDC has now
given a decision that use of “the appellation of
‘Barrister’ as a title before the name of a legal practitioner is
unprofessional and improper.” This (LPDC) ruling is yet
to be appealed against and has not been set aside nor annulled by
any later statute. It then follows that whether or not my friend,
Mr. Ramos, or indeed any other person “laughs it off” or
“pays less attention” to the ruling, the ruling represents
the correct position of law in Nigeria today, as far as lawyers and
the legal profession are concerned. Hence, there is no doubt that
use of the word “barrister” as a prefix before a lawyer`s name
remains banned for being unprofessional and amounting to
misconduct. Mr. Ramos is therefore wrong on this side.
Further, in the rejoinder under reference, Mr. Ramos tried to
call in aid the provisions of Rule 40 of the RPC to justify his
submission that use of “barrister” by lawyers as an honorific title
before their names enjoys some legal or professional foundation. In
this respect, he does not succeed, with due respect. Rule
40 (b) of the RPC, 2007 provides that “a lawyer may
cause to be printed on his note-papers, envelopes and visiting
cards… his academic and professional qualifications and title
including “Barrister-at-law,” “Barrister & Solicitor,”
“Solicitor & Advocate,” “Legal Practitioner.” Application
of the literal rule of interpretation to this provision shows that
even as it is, the Rule does not authorize use of
“Barrister-at-law,” “Barrister & Solicitor,” etc., as a prefix
before the lawyer`s name. I have explained, hereinabove, how these
terms could be suitably used as honorifics after,
but never as a prefix to, a lawyer`s name. Still on this, the word
“barrister” as I shall further illustrate, below, may be said to be
a “professional qualification,” but certainly it is not an
honorific title to be used as prefix before a lawyer`s name. No
section of the LPA, and no Rule in the RPC, 2007, supports that
proposition, whether expressly or impliedly. And there is no legal
support anywhere else for its use as a prefix before a lawyer`s
name. Hence, my answer to Mr. Ramos` question as whether
“writing ‘Barr. Bolaji Ramos’
on my notes, office stationary, cards etc can be said… to
be socially childish, unprofessional, inappropriate, unfortunate,
unnecessary and demeaning to the legal profession,”
is a resounding Yes! It is unprofessional! It is
demeaning, childish! And it lacks any legal foundation!
THE GRAMMAR CONNECTION
Mr. Ramos tried hard, but completely failed, to justify use of
“barrister” as prefix (title) on the basis that such is
grammatically correct. This raises two issues: “barrister” is an
English word; and law in Nigeria is majorly derived from England!
Put differently, the English Legal System is a most dominant source
of the Nigerian Legal System. A notable English dictionary defines
the word “barrister” in the following
words: “(Law) Also
called: barrister-at-law (in
England) a lawyer who has been called to the bar and is qualified
to plead in the higher courts.” (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/barrister).
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a
“barrister” in Britain is “a
person called to the bar and entitled to practice as an
advocate, particularly in the higher courts.” (see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/barrister).
The Cambridge English Dictionary gives the meaning
of the word thus: “a person called to the bar and entitled to
practice as an advocate, particularly in the higher courts.
a type of lawyer in the
UK, Australia, and some
other countries who can
give specialized legal advice and
can argue a case in
both higher
and lower courts. (see
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/barrister).
From Wikipedia:
“A barrister (also
known
as barrister-at-law or bar-at-law)
is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions. Barristers mostly
specialize in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include taking
cases in superior courts and tribunals, drafting
legal pleadings, researching the philosophy,
hypothesis and history of law, and giving expert legal
opinions.” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister).
In England and Wales, the word “barrister” is also used to refer to
a profession: “the profession of barrister in England and Wales
is a separate profession from that of solicitor. It is, however,
possible to hold the qualification of both barrister and solicitor
at the same time.” (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister#United_Kingdom).
Finally, on its part, The Black`s Law
Dictionary says that a “barrister” is “in English law, an advocate; one
who has been called to the bar. A counsellor learned in the law who
pleads at the bar of the courts, and who is engaged in conducting
the trial or argument of causes.” (see http://thelawdictionary.org/barrister/).
What more should I say? The word “barrister” is used
appropriately to refer to only two things: (1) a certain
“profession” and or (2) a member of, or a person qualified in, that
profession. Moreover, “barrister,” as an English word, is
a noun, not an adjective and must never be used as an adjective. If
I say “Bolaji Ramos, Barrister-at-Law,” I have used the word/term
appropriately. But if I say or write “Barrister Bolaji Ramos,” I
have committed a grammatical gaffe! Now, compare the use of
the words, “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” “Ms.,” or “Miss.” The Cambridge
English Dictionary describes or defines “Mr.” as
“a title used before the
family name or full name of a man…”
while “Mrs.” is “a title used before the
family name or full name of a married
woman…” (see
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mr?fallbackFrom=british-grammar&q=Mr).
“Barrister” is not in the same
category as “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” etc. So, any use of “barrister” as a
title before a person`s name is grammatically wrong, childish and
awkward. There is no doubt about this!
Permit me to stretch this matter further by asking a simple
question: please where did Nigerian lawyers copy the use of
“barrister” as a prefix from? From which country or legal
jurisdiction, I mean? Since much of our law, practice and legal
system were either imported from Britain or modelled after the
British, one may ask whether we did not also import this practice
from England. The answer is an emphatic No! There is hardly any
lawyer in England today (Barrister or Solicitor) that goes about
using “barrister” or “solicitor” as a prefix before his name. And
no one in that country addresses himself, or permits himself to be
addressed, in such a manner — whether in a book or article, on a
card, in a letter or otherwise. Why then do some Nigerian lawyers
indulge in this embarrassing practice, one may again ask? In answer
to this, let me quickly refer us to what a regular commentator on
Legal Minds (a popular WhatsApp platform in Nigeria) who
goes by the name, Ken Chinedu Konze wrote in reaction to Mr Bolaji
Ramos` rejoinder: “a lawyer who knows his onions ought to know
that it`s wrong to use BARRISTER before his names…. I see it used
only by lawyers who suffer from complex.” I agree with him.
However, this does not answer the question as to where Nigerian
lawyers copied the habit from. So, I think it is time to do a brief
survey of the opinions of authors, writers and experts in this
field.
In an article titled, “Stop calling me “Barrister
Stone!,” published by lawyahjhane, the use of the word
“barrister” as an honorific title before a lawyer`s
name is roundly denounced in the following words:
“It is a common phenomenon to see people call Lawyers this
way:- “Barrister Janet” “Barrister Lanre” “Barrister Muiz”
“Barrister Felix,” …but, with all due respect, this is not the
right way. Barrister is not a title! Not at all! It is not even a
sign of respect. The saddening part is that even Lawyers address
themselves as “barrister.” For any benefit of doubt, I want you to
bear in mind that, in the legal profession, there is a split. We
have a Barrister and Solicitor. Just like we have a man in the
generic sense, but inside a man can either be both a husband and a
father, or either of the two, same is applicable in the legal
profession. The umbrella word for both a Barrister and Solicitor is
Lawyer or Legal Practitioner. Barrister or Solicitor only points to
the roles a Lawyer plays or the area of specialization of a
Lawyer…. Most times, Lawyers in Courtroom call themselves Counsel.
You hear judges call Lawyers that appear before them Counsel. Even
with this, you can’t draft a document and put your name as “Counsel
Janet Babajide.” That is comical and ridiculous. Of course, some
Lawyers write agreement and put something like this “Barrister
Tunde Onijibiti.” This is also not necessary because whether you
specialize as a Barrister or a Solicitor or practice as both, you
still remain a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria. Why remove the Solicitor and just address yourself with
that “Barrister.” If you must put a title before your name for
people to know that you are a lawyer, why not put it this
way,”Tunde Onijibiti Esq…. So, next time you see me, don’t
call me Barrister Janet, rather, call me Janet Esq. or Janet
because I am both a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria. Thank you!”
(see https://lawyahjhane.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/stopping-calling-me-barrister-stone/)
In a publication titled,
“What Is the Proper Way to Address a
Lawyer?” Kara Page, Associate Director in
the College of Journalism and Communications, University of
Florida, USA, observes as follows:
“When meeting or writing a letter to a lawyer, knowing the
proper way to address him is a sign of respect for his position. In
the case of lawyers, the term “esquire” is frequently used as an
honorific in letters, although not in person or on the phone.
Whether addressing an envelope, a salutation, or greeting a lawyer
in person, the proper protocol is simple to follow and
remember. Personal Greeting: The proper way to
greet a lawyer either in person or on the phone is with the
prefixes “Mr.” or “Ms,” depending on their sex and last name. For
example, “Good morning, Ms. Wilcox.” Envelope:
The front of the envelope to the lawyer should be addressed
using his full name, a comma, and “Esquire” or the abbreviation
“Esq.” For example, “John Wilcox, Esq.” Inside
Address: The inside address on a letter features the
recipient’s name and contact information, and comes below your
letterhead and the date. Write the lawyer’s full name in this
section of your letter. Follow the name with “Esquire” as you did
on the envelope, or type the lawyer’s official title, such as
“Attorney at Law,” beneath his name.
Salutation: For a proper letter salutation,
greet the lawyer using the appropriate prefix and his last name.
For example, “Dear Ms. Wilcox.”” (see https://bizfluent.com/info-7749962-proper-way-address-lawyer.html)
WordReferrence.com is a US-based online
platform devoted to discussing current issues as they relate to
grammar, etiquette, communication, professionalism, professional
practice, etc. A discussion on the platform under the title,
HOW TO ADDRESS A LAWYER, is dedicated
solely to addressing issues relating to the proper manner of
addressing a lawyer— socially, formally or professionally. Writing
in answer to the question, “When you are talking to a
lawyer, how do you address him?” one senior member of the
platform who is also a communication experts has this to say:
“In EEUU, laywer, attorney
… has
no informal title. A formal
title
is esquire, abbreviated ‘esq.’
This is mostly used in formal correspondence or legal papers.
(Joe Brown, esq.) So, you would call him/her by their name (‘Mr.
Brown,’ ‘Ms. Smith’). You would most likely say “Mr. XXX” or if you
wish to show deference, you might address him as “sir”. I think
these are your only printable options —–“What is your
opinion, Mr. Blackstone?” Lawyers are called
Counselor in court by the judge or other lawyers, but rarely do we
use that term in other situations, and it is not comparable to how
“Doctor” is used as a title by lay people.”
(see https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/how-to-address-a-lawyer.611714/)
In a related development, another expert in this field,
Nancy Holland, has offered the following guide
regarding the appropriate manner of addressing business letters to
lawyers, barristers, attorneys, or solicitors, as well as on the
proper use of the term “esquire:”
“Use of Attorney-at-Law: “Type
“Mr.” or “Ms.” followed by the full name of the lawyer on the first
line of the address. Type “Attorney at Law” on the second line of
the address. Type the name of the attorney’s law firm, company or
governmental agency on the line under “Attorney at Law.” Add the
street address on the next line with the city, state and ZIP code
on the last line. Type the salutation as “Dear Mr.” or “Dear Ms.”
followed by the last name of the lawyer. Type a colon at the end of
the salutation.” Use of Esquire: “Type
the lawyer’s full name followed by a comma. Type “Esq.” after the
comma. Type the name of the attorney’s law firm, company or
governmental agency on the line under his name. Add the street
address on the next line with the city, state and ZIP code on the
last line. Type the salutation starting with “Dear Mr.” or “Dear
Ms.” followed by the last name of the lawyer. Type a colon at the
end of the salutation.”(see http://classroom.synonym.com/how-to-address-business-letters-to-lawyers-12082292.html)
Finally, Roberty Hickey is the Deputy Director
and Senior Master Trainer, specializing in “Titles and Forms of
Address” at the Protocol School of Washington,
USA. He is also the author of the famous book,
Honor & Respect: Official Guide to Names, Titles, &
Forms of Address. Writing under the title, “How to
Address an Attorney or Lawyer in the United States,” the
notable author has advised that there are two major ways of
addressing a lawyer; the first is to write the lawyer`s full name
followed by the word “Esquire,” abbreviated “Esq” (e.g., “Robert
Smith Esq.”). Alternatively, he says, you put the title
Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss as a prefix before the lawyer`s name (e.g., Mr
Robert Smith). He (Mr. Robert Hickey) then handed own the following
warning:
“Esq. is not used by the
attorney with his or her own name on letterhead or
his or her business card and not used when
addressing an attorney socially.’
Esq.’ is used after a
name to identify a lawyer in exactly the same
way M.D. after a name identifies
a doctor. But in fact, they are not equivalents. The
traditional use of ‘esq.’ is … for
others to add it to the attorney’s name when writing
to a practicing attorney
(e.g., on a letter) to note/specify
that the attorney is being addressed in his or her
role as counsel in litigation or as a professional:
‘Kenneth Millard, Esq.
Traditionally ‘esq.’ is not used
reflexively … that is, one does not call oneself
an Esq. when presenting one’s name on
one’s own letterhead or business card. Thus, on a business
card or letterhead names of the principals, partners,
associates, are be presented without post nominals:
“Kenneth Millard, Attorney at Law.” Socially,
attorneys are addressed as ‘Mr.’/’Ms.’ (followed by
his/her name) … the post
nominal ‘Esq.’ is not used socially….
Socially, an attorney and his wife are simply addressed thus:
‘Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wilson.’”
(see http://www.formsofaddress.info/Lawyer.html)
Let me quickly recall, at this juncture, that in the United
States of America (USA), the term “attorney” is used to refer
to “a lawyer who has passed a bar examination and has been
admitted to the bar and is licensed to practice law in a particular
jurisdiction.” (see https://www.wikihow.com/Address-an-Attorney-on-an-Envelope;
See also http://www.thelawinsider.com/insider-tips/whats-the-difference-between-an-attorney-and-a-lawyer/).
Attorneys are addressed as Mr. or Ms. (followed by their
names). It has also been suggested that it is not right to consider
a woman’s marital status when addressing her
professionally. The proper form is “Mary
Johnson.” (see https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071007155328AA6TZNi).
This is may be different when addressing her socially: “Mrs.
Mary Johnson.”
The aforesaid has made this matter clearer and has shown that
this “title” debate is unnecessary. But my dear learned friend, Mr
Ramos, is not done yet; he still goes on to allude to
“Professor XXX,” “Engineer ZZZ,” and other misalliance as
examples of honorific prefixes and then suggests that these are
still fashionable. It is however interesting to point out to him,
with due respect, that even in those countries he referred to,
“barrister” is not used as a prefix before a lawyer`s
name. So, what is the use citing the “engineer,” “professor,” etc.,
as examples to rationalise the use of “barrister” as an
honorific prefix? With the greatest respect, such comparison or
analogy is incongruent, incoherent and
incompatible! It does not hold water, because there are no
credible pedestals for such comparison, especially when one
considers that the use of “professor,” “Dr.” as prefixes (for
lawyers, etc.) have since been jettisoned in much of the civilised
world as archaic and improper. Writing on www.economist.com,
a certain author has openly criticized the use of the title
“Dr.” as prefix by lawyers with the Doctor of Laws
degree (JSD or PH. D), describing the same as “silly and
pedantic.” (See https://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/03/professional-titles).
My learned friend would agree with me that if a
Nigerian lawyer travels to any of the countries named during the
course of this interesting but needless debate (e.g., Britain, USA,
Canada, Australia, Italy, etc.), and addresses or introduces
himself as, say, “Barrister John Okafor,” his audience
would react with some scorn, jeer, disbelief, puzzlement or all of
the above!
From the foregoing, therefore, my respected learned friend,
Bolaji Ramos, and those who encourage or subscribe to the line of
thought he has adopted in his rejoinder, could see clearly that
from all angles, it is very wrong for a lawyer to use or be
addressed with the word “barrister” as a prefix before his name. It
is wrong legally; it is contemptible
professionally; it is inappropriate
grammatically; it is unsuitable
socially and it is inacceptable
formally; such practice is therefore clearly
unprofessional, demeaning, and downright childish. Indeed,
everything is wrong with it! A lawyer has a
general ethical, professional and legal responsibility to uphold
and observe the rule of law, maintain high standard of professional
conduct and must not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a
legal practitioner. See Rule 1 of the RPC, 2007. In spite of
all these, and in violation of the ruling in NBA v. OFOMATA, some
lawyers are bent on the practice of using “barrister” as a prefix
before their names. This clearly is illustrative and symptomatic of
some of the major problems facing the legal profession in Nigeria —
unnecessary pride, inappropriate show-off, and excessive obsession
with vain titles. With due respect, some of our lawyers are just
pendants, engaging in and preoccupied with unnecessary show-off,
and display of self-importance while caring only little about those
things that really matter in the profession and society. Pedantic
use of “barrister” as a prefix is actuated and accompanied by
feeling of some sense of superiority and conspicuous show-off in an
attempt to impress others with an added intention to project some
self-importance, all of which constitute a major problem in our
profession. Some lawyers are hardly able to undertake the average
lawyer’s work, in a competent, timeous and satisfactory manner,
when called upon to so do, yet the same set is among those who
flaunt the term “barrister” as a prefix before their names wherever
they find themselves. In some cases, one could get even ignored or
verbally assaulted if one fails to add “barristers” before
mentioning their (lawyers`) names. It’s indeed a huge problem with
some of our lawyers as with the society in which we live — undue
fascination with titles, honorific prefixes and material things.
So, apart from that use of “barrister” as a prefix is legally,
socially, grammatically and professionally incorrect, as I have
shown above, much of the argument against it has pretty so much
more to do with the need for lawyers to eschew pendanticalness,
vainglory and ostentatiousness and embrace hard-work, humility,
professionalism, and integrity, which are the hallmark of a great
lawyer. As I had earlier suggested, when it comes to law
practice, what makes a good lawyer is not the number of title
prefixes he carries around; a good lawyer is known by what comes
out of him, and by the aggregate of his contribution to finding
valuable solutions to problems bedeviling his clients, his
profession, and his society. In other words, they are known by
their fruits, not by their titles!
Sylvester Udemezue
Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), Cap L11, Laws
of the Federation of Nigerian (LFN), 2004, provides that “there
shall be a Committee of the Body of Benchers to be known as the
Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee … which shall be charged
with the duty of considering and determining any case where it is
alleged that a person who is a member of the legal profession has
misbehaved in his capacity as such or should for any other reason
be subject to its proceedings under this Act.” The Legal
Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) sits
as a tribunal or a civil court to determine cases of professional
misconduct against lawyers in Nigeria. Its decision is appealable
to a higher court (see section 12 (7) of the LPA. Decisions or
directions of the LPDC are binding on all legal practitioners in
Nigeria unless set aside on appeal (see s. 12 (8) LPA). Now, in the
case of NGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (NBA) v. OFOMATA,
reported in (2017) 5 NWLR (PT 1557) 128 at 133, the LPDC had held
that the use of “the appellation of ‘Barrister’ as a
title before the name of a legal practitioner is unprofessional and
improper; …”
In reaction to this ruling by the LPDC, I had made some comment
on a popular WhatsApp forum, which comment was later published in
some online media platforms, including nairalaw.com,
lawyard.ng and a host of others. The publication on www.lawyard.ng
on 19 April 2017 came under the caption, “ON THE RULING IN NBA
V. OFOMATA BANNING LAWYERS FROM USING THE TITLE ‘BARRISTER.’”
(see http://www.lawyard.ng/on-the-ruling-in-nba-v-ofomata-banning-lawyers-from-using-the-title-barrister-sylvester-udemezue/).
The said decision of the LPDC and my comment had then generated
some wider discussions among lawyers, especially on the social
media, as to the propriety or otherwise of use of the term
“barrister” as a prefix before a lawyer`s name, which discussions
culminated in a rejoinder by my respected learned friend, Bolaji
Ramos. The rejoinder, published on www.dnllegalandstyle.com, on 31
October 2017, came under the heading, “And What is Wrong in
Using the Title ‘Barrister’? (An Answer To Sylvester
Udemezue).” (see
https://www.dnllegalandstyle.com/wrong-using-title-barrister-answer-sylvester-udemezue-bolaji-ramos/)
I have read the case of NBA v. OFOMATA, my earlier comment and
now the rejoinder by Mr. Bolaji Ramos, and I honestly believe that
there is need to put out some more comments on the matter, by way
of a surrejoinder, so as to further put the issues
surrounding this debate in proper perspective and thus leave no one
in any doubt as to the correct position, which is that,
indeed, everything is wrong with use of
the word “barrister” as an honorific title before a lawyer`s
name. As I had earlier stated, such is not just wrong, but
irredeemably wrong, demeaning, awkward, unnecessary and now
unprofessional, from whichever angle one decides to look at it. I
shall now take the point one-by-one, to adequately deal with my
brother lawyer`s rejoinder, which I consider, with the greatest
respect, misplaced and lacking any legal, moral, professional,
grammatical or social foundation.
As I had earlier pointed out, use of the word “barrister” beside
a lawyer`s name is not in itself wrong nor unprofessional. Having
been duly called to the prestigious Nigerian bar and enrolled at
the Supreme Court as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court
of Nigeria, there is nothing wrong for a lawyer in Nigeria to
associate the term “barrister,” “solicitor,” “advocate,” legal
practitioner,” “lawyer,” or any related term with his name.
Precisely, there is nothing wrong with the following: (1)
“Robert Oke, Barrister-at-Law,” “Jide Obi, Barrister &
Solicitor,” “Ben Ade Musa, Solicitor & Advocate,” “Chuks
Adewale, Legal Practitioner,” “Amina Okon, Barrister.” There
is also nothing wrong if I run into a lawyer on my way to a meeting
and greet him in the following manner, “Good morning,
Barrister. Hope you are doing great.” These are not what this
argument is all about. This debate is as regards writing the name
of, or addressing, a lawyer in any one of the following forms,
“Barrister Amina Okon” or Barrister Ben Ade Musa.” This is
what I had in mind, as unambiguously expressed in the published
comment. Now, over to the matter at hand!
My learned friend, Mr. Bolaji Ramos, has “laughed off and
paid less attention to” the decision in NBA v. OFOMATA (supra)
because as he thinks that members of the court (LPDC)
“must have either been quoted out of context or
something must have gone wrong somewhere.” With due respect,
Sir, you are wrong! This introductory statement in your rejoinder
is a clear indication that you did not bother to read the judgment
of the LPDC in that case before you hastily ventured into your
rejoinder. If you had, you would have appreciated the reasons for
their opinions and you would not have been laughing off such a
serious matter.
Let me now go into the crux of Mr. Ramos`s submission. Hear Mr
Ramos: “An argument on the appropriateness or otherwise of the
use of the word has a strong bearing on three areas of interest:
(a.) professional practice; (b.) law; and (c.) grammar.”
THE POSTION OF LAW WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE
LEGAL PROFESSION
I agree to some extent with my learned friend, Mr. Ramos, that
the fons et origo of our professional conduct as lawyers
is the Rules of the Professional Conduct (RPC), 2007, made pursuant
to the Legal Practitioners Act. But my friend completely left out
section 22 (1) (b) of the LPA which is the relevant legal provision
on the matter at hand. Respecting the provisions of that section, I
had written as follows:
“While section 22 (1) (b) permits only lawyers to “take or
use the title of legal practitioner,” it does not say the later
should use the expression “legal practitioner” or “barrister” as a
title before his names. The proper interpretation of that paragraph
is that only a person duly qualified as a lawyer can hold himself
out as a legal practitioner by using that title.” (see http://www.lawyard.ng/on-the-ruling-in-nba-v-ofomata-banning-lawyers-from-using-the-title-barrister-sylvester-udemezue/).
Mr. Ramos forgot also that even though Courts of Law in reaching
their decisions, are guided by provisions of statutes. Yet, when
once a court has made some clear pronouncement on, or
interpretation of, a certain (provision of a) statute, the affected
legislation must thenceforth be interpreted and applied only in
line with such court pronouncement. This in other words means that
in any such situation, one is no longer entitled to apply or
interpret provisions of such statute without recourse to the
decision of court thereon. It is for this reason that
Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr has
declared in his book, The Path Of The Law, thus:
“The prophecies of what the courts will
do in fact, and nothing more pretentious,
are what I mean by
the law“ (see http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm).
The LPDC is a tribunal established by law, with a mandate to guide
lawyers in Nigeria as to what is or is not “unprofessional” and
also regarding what action or omission by a legal practitioner
amounts or does not amount to a “misconduct.” The LPDC has now
given a decision that use of “the appellation of
‘Barrister’ as a title before the name of a legal practitioner is
unprofessional and improper.” This (LPDC) ruling is yet
to be appealed against and has not been set aside nor annulled by
any later statute. It then follows that whether or not my friend,
Mr. Ramos, or indeed any other person “laughs it off” or
“pays less attention” to the ruling, the ruling represents
the correct position of law in Nigeria today, as far as lawyers and
the legal profession are concerned. Hence, there is no doubt that
use of the word “barrister” as a prefix before a lawyer`s name
remains banned for being unprofessional and amounting to
misconduct. Mr. Ramos is therefore wrong on this side.
Further, in the rejoinder under reference, Mr. Ramos tried to
call in aid the provisions of Rule 40 of the RPC to justify his
submission that use of “barrister” by lawyers as an honorific title
before their names enjoys some legal or professional foundation. In
this respect, he does not succeed, with due respect. Rule
40 (b) of the RPC, 2007 provides that “a lawyer may
cause to be printed on his note-papers, envelopes and visiting
cards… his academic and professional qualifications and title
including “Barrister-at-law,” “Barrister & Solicitor,”
“Solicitor & Advocate,” “Legal Practitioner.” Application
of the literal rule of interpretation to this provision shows that
even as it is, the Rule does not authorize use of
“Barrister-at-law,” “Barrister & Solicitor,” etc., as a prefix
before the lawyer`s name. I have explained, hereinabove, how these
terms could be suitably used as honorifics after,
but never as a prefix to, a lawyer`s name. Still on this, the word
“barrister” as I shall further illustrate, below, may be said to be
a “professional qualification,” but certainly it is not an
honorific title to be used as prefix before a lawyer`s name. No
section of the LPA, and no Rule in the RPC, 2007, supports that
proposition, whether expressly or impliedly. And there is no legal
support anywhere else for its use as a prefix before a lawyer`s
name. Hence, my answer to Mr. Ramos` question as whether
“writing ‘Barr. Bolaji Ramos’
on my notes, office stationary, cards etc can be said… to
be socially childish, unprofessional, inappropriate, unfortunate,
unnecessary and demeaning to the legal profession,”
is a resounding Yes! It is unprofessional! It is
demeaning, childish! And it lacks any legal foundation!
THE GRAMMAR CONNECTION
Mr. Ramos tried hard, but completely failed, to justify use of
“barrister” as prefix (title) on the basis that such is
grammatically correct. This raises two issues: “barrister” is an
English word; and law in Nigeria is majorly derived from England!
Put differently, the English Legal System is a most dominant source
of the Nigerian Legal System. A notable English dictionary defines
the word “barrister” in the following
words: “(Law) Also
called: barrister-at-law (in
England) a lawyer who has been called to the bar and is qualified
to plead in the higher courts.” (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/barrister).
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a
“barrister” in Britain is “a
person called to the bar and entitled to practice as an
advocate, particularly in the higher courts.” (see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/barrister).
The Cambridge English Dictionary gives the meaning
of the word thus: “a person called to the bar and entitled to
practice as an advocate, particularly in the higher courts.
a type of lawyer in the
UK, Australia, and some
other countries who can
give specialized legal advice and
can argue a case in
both higher
and lower courts. (see
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/barrister).
From Wikipedia:
“A barrister (also
known
as barrister-at-law or bar-at-law)
is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions. Barristers mostly
specialize in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include taking
cases in superior courts and tribunals, drafting
legal pleadings, researching the philosophy,
hypothesis and history of law, and giving expert legal
opinions.” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister).
In England and Wales, the word “barrister” is also used to refer to
a profession: “the profession of barrister in England and Wales
is a separate profession from that of solicitor. It is, however,
possible to hold the qualification of both barrister and solicitor
at the same time.” (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister#United_Kingdom).
Finally, on its part, The Black`s Law
Dictionary says that a “barrister” is “in English law, an advocate; one
who has been called to the bar. A counsellor learned in the law who
pleads at the bar of the courts, and who is engaged in conducting
the trial or argument of causes.” (see http://thelawdictionary.org/barrister/).
What more should I say? The word “barrister” is used
appropriately to refer to only two things: (1) a certain
“profession” and or (2) a member of, or a person qualified in, that
profession. Moreover, “barrister,” as an English word, is
a noun, not an adjective and must never be used as an adjective. If
I say “Bolaji Ramos, Barrister-at-Law,” I have used the word/term
appropriately. But if I say or write “Barrister Bolaji Ramos,” I
have committed a grammatical gaffe! Now, compare the use of
the words, “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” “Ms.,” or “Miss.” The Cambridge
English Dictionary describes or defines “Mr.” as
“a title used before the
family name or full name of a man…”
while “Mrs.” is “a title used before the
family name or full name of a married
woman…” (see
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mr?fallbackFrom=british-grammar&q=Mr).
“Barrister” is not in the same
category as “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” etc. So, any use of “barrister” as a
title before a person`s name is grammatically wrong, childish and
awkward. There is no doubt about this!
Permit me to stretch this matter further by asking a simple
question: please where did Nigerian lawyers copy the use of
“barrister” as a prefix from? From which country or legal
jurisdiction, I mean? Since much of our law, practice and legal
system were either imported from Britain or modelled after the
British, one may ask whether we did not also import this practice
from England. The answer is an emphatic No! There is hardly any
lawyer in England today (Barrister or Solicitor) that goes about
using “barrister” or “solicitor” as a prefix before his name. And
no one in that country addresses himself, or permits himself to be
addressed, in such a manner — whether in a book or article, on a
card, in a letter or otherwise. Why then do some Nigerian lawyers
indulge in this embarrassing practice, one may again ask? In answer
to this, let me quickly refer us to what a regular commentator on
Legal Minds (a popular WhatsApp platform in Nigeria) who
goes by the name, Ken Chinedu Konze wrote in reaction to Mr Bolaji
Ramos` rejoinder: “a lawyer who knows his onions ought to know
that it`s wrong to use BARRISTER before his names…. I see it used
only by lawyers who suffer from complex.” I agree with him.
However, this does not answer the question as to where Nigerian
lawyers copied the habit from. So, I think it is time to do a brief
survey of the opinions of authors, writers and experts in this
field.
In an article titled, “Stop calling me “Barrister
Stone!,” published by lawyahjhane, the use of the word
“barrister” as an honorific title before a lawyer`s
name is roundly denounced in the following words:
“It is a common phenomenon to see people call Lawyers this
way:- “Barrister Janet” “Barrister Lanre” “Barrister Muiz”
“Barrister Felix,” …but, with all due respect, this is not the
right way. Barrister is not a title! Not at all! It is not even a
sign of respect. The saddening part is that even Lawyers address
themselves as “barrister.” For any benefit of doubt, I want you to
bear in mind that, in the legal profession, there is a split. We
have a Barrister and Solicitor. Just like we have a man in the
generic sense, but inside a man can either be both a husband and a
father, or either of the two, same is applicable in the legal
profession. The umbrella word for both a Barrister and Solicitor is
Lawyer or Legal Practitioner. Barrister or Solicitor only points to
the roles a Lawyer plays or the area of specialization of a
Lawyer…. Most times, Lawyers in Courtroom call themselves Counsel.
You hear judges call Lawyers that appear before them Counsel. Even
with this, you can’t draft a document and put your name as “Counsel
Janet Babajide.” That is comical and ridiculous. Of course, some
Lawyers write agreement and put something like this “Barrister
Tunde Onijibiti.” This is also not necessary because whether you
specialize as a Barrister or a Solicitor or practice as both, you
still remain a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria. Why remove the Solicitor and just address yourself with
that “Barrister.” If you must put a title before your name for
people to know that you are a lawyer, why not put it this
way,”Tunde Onijibiti Esq…. So, next time you see me, don’t
call me Barrister Janet, rather, call me Janet Esq. or Janet
because I am both a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria. Thank you!”
(see https://lawyahjhane.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/stopping-calling-me-barrister-stone/)
In a publication titled,
“What Is the Proper Way to Address a
Lawyer?” Kara Page, Associate Director in
the College of Journalism and Communications, University of
Florida, USA, observes as follows:
“When meeting or writing a letter to a lawyer, knowing the
proper way to address him is a sign of respect for his position. In
the case of lawyers, the term “esquire” is frequently used as an
honorific in letters, although not in person or on the phone.
Whether addressing an envelope, a salutation, or greeting a lawyer
in person, the proper protocol is simple to follow and
remember. Personal Greeting: The proper way to
greet a lawyer either in person or on the phone is with the
prefixes “Mr.” or “Ms,” depending on their sex and last name. For
example, “Good morning, Ms. Wilcox.” Envelope:
The front of the envelope to the lawyer should be addressed
using his full name, a comma, and “Esquire” or the abbreviation
“Esq.” For example, “John Wilcox, Esq.” Inside
Address: The inside address on a letter features the
recipient’s name and contact information, and comes below your
letterhead and the date. Write the lawyer’s full name in this
section of your letter. Follow the name with “Esquire” as you did
on the envelope, or type the lawyer’s official title, such as
“Attorney at Law,” beneath his name.
Salutation: For a proper letter salutation,
greet the lawyer using the appropriate prefix and his last name.
For example, “Dear Ms. Wilcox.”” (see https://bizfluent.com/info-7749962-proper-way-address-lawyer.html)
WordReferrence.com is a US-based online
platform devoted to discussing current issues as they relate to
grammar, etiquette, communication, professionalism, professional
practice, etc. A discussion on the platform under the title,
HOW TO ADDRESS A LAWYER, is dedicated
solely to addressing issues relating to the proper manner of
addressing a lawyer— socially, formally or professionally. Writing
in answer to the question, “When you are talking to a
lawyer, how do you address him?” one senior member of the
platform who is also a communication experts has this to say:
“In EEUU, laywer, attorney
… has
no informal title. A formal
title
is esquire, abbreviated ‘esq.’
This is mostly used in formal correspondence or legal papers.
(Joe Brown, esq.) So, you would call him/her by their name (‘Mr.
Brown,’ ‘Ms. Smith’). You would most likely say “Mr. XXX” or if you
wish to show deference, you might address him as “sir”. I think
these are your only printable options —–“What is your
opinion, Mr. Blackstone?” Lawyers are called
Counselor in court by the judge or other lawyers, but rarely do we
use that term in other situations, and it is not comparable to how
“Doctor” is used as a title by lay people.”
(see https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/how-to-address-a-lawyer.611714/)
In a related development, another expert in this field,
Nancy Holland, has offered the following guide
regarding the appropriate manner of addressing business letters to
lawyers, barristers, attorneys, or solicitors, as well as on the
proper use of the term “esquire:”
“Use of Attorney-at-Law: “Type
“Mr.” or “Ms.” followed by the full name of the lawyer on the first
line of the address. Type “Attorney at Law” on the second line of
the address. Type the name of the attorney’s law firm, company or
governmental agency on the line under “Attorney at Law.” Add the
street address on the next line with the city, state and ZIP code
on the last line. Type the salutation as “Dear Mr.” or “Dear Ms.”
followed by the last name of the lawyer. Type a colon at the end of
the salutation.” Use of Esquire: “Type
the lawyer’s full name followed by a comma. Type “Esq.” after the
comma. Type the name of the attorney’s law firm, company or
governmental agency on the line under his name. Add the street
address on the next line with the city, state and ZIP code on the
last line. Type the salutation starting with “Dear Mr.” or “Dear
Ms.” followed by the last name of the lawyer. Type a colon at the
end of the salutation.”(see http://classroom.synonym.com/how-to-address-business-letters-to-lawyers-12082292.html)
Finally, Roberty Hickey is the Deputy Director
and Senior Master Trainer, specializing in “Titles and Forms of
Address” at the Protocol School of Washington,
USA. He is also the author of the famous book,
Honor & Respect: Official Guide to Names, Titles, &
Forms of Address. Writing under the title, “How to
Address an Attorney or Lawyer in the United States,” the
notable author has advised that there are two major ways of
addressing a lawyer; the first is to write the lawyer`s full name
followed by the word “Esquire,” abbreviated “Esq” (e.g., “Robert
Smith Esq.”). Alternatively, he says, you put the title
Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss as a prefix before the lawyer`s name (e.g., Mr
Robert Smith). He (Mr. Robert Hickey) then handed own the following
warning:
“Esq. is not used by the
attorney with his or her own name on letterhead or
his or her business card and not used when
addressing an attorney socially.’
Esq.’ is used after a
name to identify a lawyer in exactly the same
way M.D. after a name identifies
a doctor. But in fact, they are not equivalents. The
traditional use of ‘esq.’ is … for
others to add it to the attorney’s name when writing
to a practicing attorney
(e.g., on a letter) to note/specify
that the attorney is being addressed in his or her
role as counsel in litigation or as a professional:
‘Kenneth Millard, Esq.
Traditionally ‘esq.’ is not used
reflexively … that is, one does not call oneself
an Esq. when presenting one’s name on
one’s own letterhead or business card. Thus, on a business
card or letterhead names of the principals, partners,
associates, are be presented without post nominals:
“Kenneth Millard, Attorney at Law.” Socially,
attorneys are addressed as ‘Mr.’/’Ms.’ (followed by
his/her name) … the post
nominal ‘Esq.’ is not used socially….
Socially, an attorney and his wife are simply addressed thus:
‘Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wilson.’”
(see http://www.formsofaddress.info/Lawyer.html)
Let me quickly recall, at this juncture, that in the United
States of America (USA), the term “attorney” is used to refer
to “a lawyer who has passed a bar examination and has been
admitted to the bar and is licensed to practice law in a particular
jurisdiction.” (see https://www.wikihow.com/Address-an-Attorney-on-an-Envelope;
See also http://www.thelawinsider.com/insider-tips/whats-the-difference-between-an-attorney-and-a-lawyer/).
Attorneys are addressed as Mr. or Ms. (followed by their
names). It has also been suggested that it is not right to consider
a woman’s marital status when addressing her
professionally. The proper form is “Mary
Johnson.” (see https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071007155328AA6TZNi).
This is may be different when addressing her socially: “Mrs.
Mary Johnson.”
The aforesaid has made this matter clearer and has shown that
this “title” debate is unnecessary. But my dear learned friend, Mr
Ramos, is not done yet; he still goes on to allude to
“Professor XXX,” “Engineer ZZZ,” and other misalliance as
examples of honorific prefixes and then suggests that these are
still fashionable. It is however interesting to point out to him,
with due respect, that even in those countries he referred to,
“barrister” is not used as a prefix before a lawyer`s
name. So, what is the use citing the “engineer,” “professor,” etc.,
as examples to rationalise the use of “barrister” as an
honorific prefix? With the greatest respect, such comparison or
analogy is incongruent, incoherent and
incompatible! It does not hold water, because there are no
credible pedestals for such comparison, especially when one
considers that the use of “professor,” “Dr.” as prefixes (for
lawyers, etc.) have since been jettisoned in much of the civilised
world as archaic and improper. Writing on www.economist.com,
a certain author has openly criticized the use of the title
“Dr.” as prefix by lawyers with the Doctor of Laws
degree (JSD or PH. D), describing the same as “silly and
pedantic.” (See https://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/03/professional-titles).
My learned friend would agree with me that if a
Nigerian lawyer travels to any of the countries named during the
course of this interesting but needless debate (e.g., Britain, USA,
Canada, Australia, Italy, etc.), and addresses or introduces
himself as, say, “Barrister John Okafor,” his audience
would react with some scorn, jeer, disbelief, puzzlement or all of
the above!
From the foregoing, therefore, my respected learned friend,
Bolaji Ramos, and those who encourage or subscribe to the line of
thought he has adopted in his rejoinder, could see clearly that
from all angles, it is very wrong for a lawyer to use or be
addressed with the word “barrister” as a prefix before his name. It
is wrong legally; it is contemptible
professionally; it is inappropriate
grammatically; it is unsuitable
socially and it is inacceptable
formally; such practice is therefore clearly
unprofessional, demeaning, and downright childish. Indeed,
everything is wrong with it! A lawyer has a
general ethical, professional and legal responsibility to uphold
and observe the rule of law, maintain high standard of professional
conduct and must not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a
legal practitioner. See Rule 1 of the RPC, 2007. In spite of
all these, and in violation of the ruling in NBA v. OFOMATA, some
lawyers are bent on the practice of using “barrister” as a prefix
before their names. This clearly is illustrative and symptomatic of
some of the major problems facing the legal profession in Nigeria —
unnecessary pride, inappropriate show-off, and excessive obsession
with vain titles. With due respect, some of our lawyers are just
pendants, engaging in and preoccupied with unnecessary show-off,
and display of self-importance while caring only little about those
things that really matter in the profession and society. Pedantic
use of “barrister” as a prefix is actuated and accompanied by
feeling of some sense of superiority and conspicuous show-off in an
attempt to impress others with an added intention to project some
self-importance, all of which constitute a major problem in our
profession. Some lawyers are hardly able to undertake the average
lawyer’s work, in a competent, timeous and satisfactory manner,
when called upon to so do, yet the same set is among those who
flaunt the term “barrister” as a prefix before their names wherever
they find themselves. In some cases, one could get even ignored or
verbally assaulted if one fails to add “barristers” before
mentioning their (lawyers`) names. It’s indeed a huge problem with
some of our lawyers as with the society in which we live — undue
fascination with titles, honorific prefixes and material things.
So, apart from that use of “barrister” as a prefix is legally,
socially, grammatically and professionally incorrect, as I have
shown above, much of the argument against it has pretty so much
more to do with the need for lawyers to eschew pendanticalness,
vainglory and ostentatiousness and embrace hard-work, humility,
professionalism, and integrity, which are the hallmark of a great
lawyer. As I had earlier suggested, when it comes to law
practice, what makes a good lawyer is not the number of title
prefixes he carries around; a good lawyer is known by what comes
out of him, and by the aggregate of his contribution to finding
valuable solutions to problems bedeviling his clients, his
profession, and his society. In other words, they are known by
their fruits, not by their titles!
Sylvester Udemezue