By Emem Ekpenyong
Litigation lawyers
They have a huge ego. Very huge. This set of lawyers have superiority complex. They pride themselves as the doyens of the legal profession. They qualify themselves as ‘practicing lawyers’. They have the tendency to look down on those not conversant with courtroom theatrics. Who that one epp? My Company law lecturer in law school that year told us that he prefers his cool cash from corporate practice to the noise made in court.
Are litigation lawyers contributing to the growth of the legal profession? Very well. But does that justify their cockiness? Not at all. Most of them regurgitate legal principles that were laid now in the 1900s and confidently argue them in court, whereas those principles had since been upturned. Their clients may be impressed by their grandstanding, but the court secretly sneers at their ignorance. Tell me why a practicing lawyer should proudly cite upturned principles of law and make reference to repealed laws? Perhaps, they also nurse the feeling that they are more knowledgeable than the judex. Who knows? They are all over the timeline reminding the world that they do not need continuous upgrading of their knowledge reserves, after all they have been in active practice for donkey years.
Shout out to all the private legal practitioners pushing the frontiers of the law and challenging previous precedents up to the Supreme Court. You are the VVIPs and you have earned your bragging rights. I celebrate you loudly. Very very loudly. The rest holding unto, ‘the court held in ABC that…’ even when such legal principle has lost its place of pride in contemporary society, slow down with the pride. A scholar will interrogate legal principles and shred judgements to pieces. If anyone feels offended by his audacity, he should call the police.
Academics
Boy o boy. Have you met them? They do not kowtow to anyone. They abhor academic subservient. They will critique an expert’s work and advance persuasive points why the position held by said authority is no longer tenable or sound. They will dissect one’s work respectfully, but will be intensely needling the work. When I wrote my books, I presented all of them to different academics good at performing surgical procedures on researched work. They needled my work. I was encouraged to critique certain principles that I felt were out of touch with reality. They are experts at critically analysing issues. No caps. After protesting inwardly, you will perfect your work. Dem no send your papa.
Have you submitted your abstract or proposal to an academic who is good at critiquing researched work? I mean those who know their onions, not those who will give you a free pass because they know you, or are seeking a favour from you. I mean those who can objectively critique academic works. If you have, then you will know that research is not all about opening law reports or logging into their electronic versions to pull up authorities. At a point, you may be tempted to believe they have something personal against you, meanwhile, they are simply doing their work. Nothing personal.
Someone said academics have expired knowledge. Dey play. Their knowledge may be limited to their areas of speciality but expired knowledge? Nehi. Someone mentioned that an academic ought to have at least one nationally popular text book before he can qualify for SANship. Between articles in peer-reviewed journals and textbooks, find out which carries more weight within the academic circles. Find out first before making an uninformed opinion. I said peer reviewed journals, not predatory journals. Why do you think I momentarily paused publishing textbooks? As I said, do make your findings first before dismissing another’s hard work.
Between 2020 and 2022, academics who had the opportunity of reading my texts asked that I transit to lecturing. About four of them. All of them said I was wasting my potentials where I was. I was needed in the University community. I thanked them for their goodwill and respectfully said no. Why? I foresaw the stress of research I was about to sign up for. I wanted to publish at my own pace, not being pressured to publish or perish. One Prof who had the connection and could have pulled the right strings asked to speak with my husband. He pleaded with him to persuade me to change my mind. My response to my husband was still no. I love to research. But at my own pace. I consider it my hobby. I h@te being pressured to deliver within certain timelines. My father mildly rebuked me for rejecting the offer. But it is what it is. Academics are not expected to recycle other’s positions. One must bring something fresh to the table. One’s work is expected to add something new to the body of knowledge. Do you still think that litigation lawyers are better researchers than academics? Take and respond.
Lawyers in corporate bodies
Some of these lawyers are heavily paid by their corporations, but litigation lawyers are concerned about being more lawyerly than others. Dey play. Why are you in practice if not to make money? If one is living his dream life sponsored by his corporate job, what is there to be ashamed of? The most amusing aspect of this silent war is that litigation lawyers consider those in corporate bodies to be out of practice. Really?
I once attended ICSAN training in Lagos. Asides one’s qualifying examinations, a prospect is expected to attend a certain number of PAID trainings to qualify to be inducted into the Institute. The trainings are usually hybrid, but since I was in Lagos at the time, I decided to opt for physical attendance. The RG of CAC was one of the guest lecturers during that training. There were about three resource persons. I was there to fulfill all righteousness. I needed the training to meet up the prerequisite of the Institute. I would have paid and stayed back, but I wanted to learn. Other lawyers in corporate practice attended to upskill. During questions session, those in corporate practice asked insightful questions and made profound suggestions. I was awed by the level of intellectual sagacity displayed by those young lawyers.
I felt left out. I have a measured knowledge of the law, but I felt left out. And I pledged that day to intentionally attend more of such workshops for self development. Some day, I may find myself in the corporate ecosystem, I do not want to feel like a fish out of water. So when I read that those in corporate practice are knowledge-deficient and need continuous legal trainings to keep them abreast with the law, I smile. When ignorance announces itself, you give it that knowing smile, not rebuke. Just smile. Those in corporate practice are knowledgeable on issues and laws relating to their industries. Why should they concern themselves with litigation issues when they are making cool cash from their corporations and delivering on the deliverables?
There is no basis for comparison please. I will like to have the brains and stamina of an academic, the legal acumen and audacity of a litigation lawyer and the finesse and cool money of a corporate lawyer, especially those working in oil companies, telecommunications and aviation industry. Or have you ever seen a corporate lawyer shouting in court to earn his money? He operates in boardrooms where he guides the high and mighty. His legal expertise is appreciated in his industry. He is an ACTIVE LEGAL PRACTITIONER in his chosen industry.
Let’s respect people’s choices and tone down on the arrogance. It doesn’t look cute. At the end of the day, we are all learned colleagues, making the profession proud. Na legit money all of us dey find, no be who sabi book pass. By the way, who is grading who? Let’s compete with ourselves, not others. We should strive to be a better versions of ourselves daily, not look out for those we think we are better than.
