ABOAGYE da COSTA v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL
July 3, 1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- FRANCOIS J.S.C
- AMPIAH
- ADJABENG JJ.A.
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
July 3, 1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Francois J.S.C. delivered the court’s judgment on an appeal by a lawyer disciplined after his relationship with complainant Nana Bosompem soured. The court rejected the existence of a general retainer, but found the appellant acted as adviser in Bosompem’s land purchase and later switched sides to represent the vendor, Kwabena Okyere, suing the Presbyterian Church and Bosompem, thereby creating a direct conflict of interest. Relying on L.I. 613 and Act 32, the court affirmed professional misconduct for failure to exhibit honesty and frankness and noted the appellant’s improper practice of allowing clerks to prepare documents. Applying the principle that appellate courts seldom interfere with disciplinary sanctions, the court nevertheless reduced the suspension from one year to six months while dismissing the appeal as to liability.
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.
Francois J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the findings and order of a disciplinary committee constituted under the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) which found the appellant guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for one year.
The charges which the disciplinary committee formulated against the appellant had their genesis from the souring of relationship between the appellant and one Nana Bosompem, the complainant. The two had started out as good friends. Nana Bosompem seemed to have relied on his lawyer friend for assistance in solving his legal problems. A number of situations where this kind of assistance was sought has been narrated. In return, Nana Bosompem claims to have given his solicitor friend princely sums, some even unsought. The appellant rejects the picture of the complainant as a munificent philanthropist to whom he is beholden. He does not accept that he was kept in funds. He even rejects the thought of the complainant as a friend. He denies that he acted on Nana Bosompem's legal instructions. The furtherest he would go, is to admit proffering legal advice on one or two occasions only.
Except for one area of instructions, we would agree with the appellant and hold that there was no general retainer creating a legal [p.315] obligation which would prohibit the appellant from acting against Bosompem. Where the appellant had given advice in the past, we are satisfied it had been offered on a purely friendly basis. Moreover, the advice given was not of such a manner and frequency as to create a special relationship amounting to a retainer. The aspect of a general retainer or its equivalent, binding the appellant to the complainant, we dismiss outright, as unfounded.
We cannot view as lightly the complaint that the appellant was the prime adviser in the complainant's purchase of land and later ditched him. Sufficient material is not available to evaluate the work the appellant did in investigating the title of the vendor. But the facts suggest that no sooner had he approved the purchase than an adverse claim was lodged by the Presbyterian Church.
In response, the appellant wrote a letter, exhibit A, on his client's behalf asserting ownership and refuting the claim of the church. Somehow down the line, the appellant switched allegiances and joined forces with the vendor of the land, one Kwabena Okyere. That by itself would