Union Bank Plc and the future of law practice

Two weeks ago, on April 16, 2018, the Nigerian Bar Association
(NBA) put out a public notice on “the Legal Advisory Services and
Alternative Dispute Resolution Offered to the Public by Union Bank
Nigeria Plc.” This was in response to a notice released by Union
Bank offering the public services which include: company
incorporations; SCUML registration, NAFDAC registration, SON
registration, other registrations; contract drafting, review and
negotiation; perfection of titles to land; mediation and
arbitration, debt recovery and general problem solving.

The NBA in its public notice cited Rule 5(5) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners which states that, “It
shall be unlawful to carry out legal practice as a corporation.’’
The argument, therefore, is that Union Bank being a corporation is
excluded from engaging in the practice of law. The NBA went further
to urge members of the public to disregard Union Bank’s publication
and refrain from patronising them for the said services.

Although the rules are clear, this is definitely a sign of the
times. Times are hard, businesses are looking to diversify their
business; and distinguish themselves in the market by offering
something that no one else in their business segment is offering.
It is about the bottom line. Legal practice, being a professional
business, is also about the bottom line. There are those who will
argue that the practice of law is not a business but rather the
pursuit of justice. Well, even in the pursuit of justice, the legal
practitioners must still be able to pay their bills and that
include their personal bills as well as the bills for the operation
of the practice. With technology and new practice models, around
the world, the practice of law has changed tremendously and is
still changing. Some of the change is forced by circumstances and
others have been the natural evolution with time and advances in
society.

The legal profession has not been immune from the pressures of
business bottom line. On the one hand is the desire to provide
legal services, faster and cheaper for the benefit of the client
and the bottom line of the legal practice. On the other hand, there
is also the growing global trend to take the practice of law out of
stuffy law offices and into arenas where the common man can easily
access legal services.

What we see as the legal profession today is the descendant of a
very elitist ancestry. In some jurisdictions it is a club of the
old-monied. It is not a profession that opens its doors wide and
calls out, “Come in, one and all, ye men impassioned by the quest
for justice.” The gatekeepers are strict but time has weakened them
somewhat.Besides, there is pressure at the gates. To meet the needs
of today, they have no choice but to open the gates a little
wider.

There are some legal practitioners in our jurisdiction who get
offended when you refer to law practice as a business. But that is
exactly what it is. They may be more comfortable if it is referred
to as a professional business, but a business it is. The game of
business is survival and business-minded legal practitioners in
places like India have found ways to plug into the value chain of
legal services worldwide. Just as tech companies outsource the
manufacturing of component parts to places with cheaper labour,
India has made itself an integral part in the delivery of legal
services. India has been described as the hotspot for Legal Process
Outsourcing (LPO). Being part of the common law tradition, Indian
lawyers are strategically placed with the necessary knowledge and
skills to offer services to top law firms in the UK, America and
other common law jurisdictions. Over the years, these lawyers and
legal businesses have armed themselves with the skill and technical
knowledge required to comply with the requirements of different
jurisdictions such as the European Union. The benefit for firms in
these jurisdictions is a reduction on their operating costs, which
is good for the bottom line.

In 2011, alternative business structures (ABSs) were officially
given the nod by the Law Society in the UK through reforms that
were referred to as Tesco Law. The aim of ABSs is to promote
competition and innovation in the delivery of legal services. One
of the arguments in support of ABSs is that the traditional legal
process is mysterious and intimidating to the public, which makes
utilisation very low and services uncompetitive. The focus for ABSs
is the consumer. How does the public want to consume legal services
and how best can we deliver it to them?

Traditionally, as is stated in Rule 5(1) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, “A lawyer shall not
form a partnership with a non-lawyer or with a lawyer who is not
admitted to practice law in Nigeria, if any of the activities of
the partnership consists of the practice of law.” This means that a
non-lawyer cannot own or invest in a law practice for the purpose
of sharing profits. This is one of the main characteristics of
ABSs. Tesco law in the UK allowed this.

Of course, quality control is one of the reasons for regulating
the practice of law and prohibiting certain relationships in legal
practice. ABSs apply to and are licensed by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority in the UK. Although companies such as KPMG,
PwC and BT all got licences in the early days of the implementation
of the reforms, the response has been like setting fire to wet
wood. Maybe people do not want “drive-thru” legal services after
all. What is important though is for the legal profession to be
innovative.

The looming threat to legal practice is Artificial Intelligence.
Everything, including legal practice, is going digital and national
borders are disappearing in the delivery of services. The question
is, how prepared are our legal practitioners and regulators for
what is ahead?

Kaine Agary(kaineagary@gmail.com)

Two weeks ago, on April 16, 2018, the Nigerian Bar Association
(NBA) put out a public notice on “the Legal Advisory Services and
Alternative Dispute Resolution Offered to the Public by Union Bank
Nigeria Plc.” This was in response to a notice released by Union
Bank offering the public services which include: company
incorporations; SCUML registration, NAFDAC registration, SON
registration, other registrations; contract drafting, review and
negotiation; perfection of titles to land; mediation and
arbitration, debt recovery and general problem solving.

The NBA in its public notice cited Rule 5(5) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners which states that, “It
shall be unlawful to carry out legal practice as a corporation.’’
The argument, therefore, is that Union Bank being a corporation is
excluded from engaging in the practice of law. The NBA went further
to urge members of the public to disregard Union Bank’s publication
and refrain from patronising them for the said services.

Although the rules are clear, this is definitely a sign of the
times. Times are hard, businesses are looking to diversify their
business; and distinguish themselves in the market by offering
something that no one else in their business segment is offering.
It is about the bottom line. Legal practice, being a professional
business, is also about the bottom line. There are those who will
argue that the practice of law is not a business but rather the
pursuit of justice. Well, even in the pursuit of justice, the legal
practitioners must still be able to pay their bills and that
include their personal bills as well as the bills for the operation
of the practice. With technology and new practice models, around
the world, the practice of law has changed tremendously and is
still changing. Some of the change is forced by circumstances and
others have been the natural evolution with time and advances in
society.

The legal profession has not been immune from the pressures of
business bottom line. On the one hand is the desire to provide
legal services, faster and cheaper for the benefit of the client
and the bottom line of the legal practice. On the other hand, there
is also the growing global trend to take the practice of law out of
stuffy law offices and into arenas where the common man can easily
access legal services.

What we see as the legal profession today is the descendant of a
very elitist ancestry. In some jurisdictions it is a club of the
old-monied. It is not a profession that opens its doors wide and
calls out, “Come in, one and all, ye men impassioned by the quest
for justice.” The gatekeepers are strict but time has weakened them
somewhat.Besides, there is pressure at the gates. To meet the needs
of today, they have no choice but to open the gates a little
wider.

There are some legal practitioners in our jurisdiction who get
offended when you refer to law practice as a business. But that is
exactly what it is. They may be more comfortable if it is referred
to as a professional business, but a business it is. The game of
business is survival and business-minded legal practitioners in
places like India have found ways to plug into the value chain of
legal services worldwide. Just as tech companies outsource the
manufacturing of component parts to places with cheaper labour,
India has made itself an integral part in the delivery of legal
services. India has been described as the hotspot for Legal Process
Outsourcing (LPO). Being part of the common law tradition, Indian
lawyers are strategically placed with the necessary knowledge and
skills to offer services to top law firms in the UK, America and
other common law jurisdictions. Over the years, these lawyers and
legal businesses have armed themselves with the skill and technical
knowledge required to comply with the requirements of different
jurisdictions such as the European Union. The benefit for firms in
these jurisdictions is a reduction on their operating costs, which
is good for the bottom line.

In 2011, alternative business structures (ABSs) were officially
given the nod by the Law Society in the UK through reforms that
were referred to as Tesco Law. The aim of ABSs is to promote
competition and innovation in the delivery of legal services. One
of the arguments in support of ABSs is that the traditional legal
process is mysterious and intimidating to the public, which makes
utilisation very low and services uncompetitive. The focus for ABSs
is the consumer. How does the public want to consume legal services
and how best can we deliver it to them?

Traditionally, as is stated in Rule 5(1) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, “A lawyer shall not
form a partnership with a non-lawyer or with a lawyer who is not
admitted to practice law in Nigeria, if any of the activities of
the partnership consists of the practice of law.” This means that a
non-lawyer cannot own or invest in a law practice for the purpose
of sharing profits. This is one of the main characteristics of
ABSs. Tesco law in the UK allowed this.

Of course, quality control is one of the reasons for regulating
the practice of law and prohibiting certain relationships in legal
practice. ABSs apply to and are licensed by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority in the UK. Although companies such as KPMG,
PwC and BT all got licences in the early days of the implementation
of the reforms, the response has been like setting fire to wet
wood. Maybe people do not want “drive-thru” legal services after
all. What is important though is for the legal profession to be
innovative.

The looming threat to legal practice is Artificial Intelligence.
Everything, including legal practice, is going digital and national
borders are disappearing in the delivery of services. The question
is, how prepared are our legal practitioners and regulators for
what is ahead?

Kaine Agary(kaineagary@gmail.com)