REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND REMUNERATION OF COUNSEL: PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION

Abstract

Though primarily, the professional calling of a lawyer is cognisable within the parameters of his relationship with his client, the lawyer is also a public offer whose motivation should transcend private gain and whose relationship with public order and the society should surpass the narrow strictures of professional practice for profit. That does not however suggest that the profit motive is incompatible with the duty of the lawyer to the society. Thus, on a balance of parity, the duty of the society to ensure prompt and reasonable remuneration of lawyers for their services is as important as the duty of advocates to serve as a bulwark for the society against arbitrariness and oppression. From the perspective of the recent Legal Practitioners (Remuneration for Business, Legal services and Representation) Order, 2023 which repeals the erstwhile Legal Practitioners’ (Remuneration for Legal Documentation and other Land Matters) Order, 1991, his paper conducted a deep and coherent examination of the procedure for recovery of compensation by a legal practitioner. Proceeding from the concept that the society’s desire for justice would be impossible of attainment without a properly funded and functioning private legal practice system, the paper theorised that establishment of the relation of attorney and client by contract, express or implied, creates a duty for the client to pay his attorney for services thus enjoyed, and also creates a right for the attorney to be paid for services thus rendered. The paper found that this duty and right are enforceable in court by actions for recovery of compensation, and established that before any such actions for recovery of compensation may be properly founded, delivery of the a duly rendered bill of charges by the attorney to his client is a condition precedent. In this regard, the paper found that delivery of such bill of charges may be followed by a request for taxation of the bill of charges. The paper found that having delivered abill of charges, the attorney’s right to sue on the bill of charges is postponed till one month after delivery of the bill, and even at when he does finally sue, he may not simply rest his case on the fact that he delivered a bill of charges, but must prove that the client is liable to pay the bill of charges. The paper found that upon due proof of his case, the court will normally give judgment for the amount of fees so claimed unless there are other factors preventing it from doing so. The paper then concluded.