Alleged Misconduct: LPDC Absolves Olanipekun, Law Firm of Wrongdoing

Wale Igbintade

The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) yesterday said it found no merit in the petition filed before it by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) asking that partners of Wole Olanipekun & Co be investigated over alleged involvement in the client solicitation accusations which rocked the legal profession recently.

In a petition dated July 19, 2022, the NBA through its Vice President, John Aikpkokpo-Martins, had filed the petition against Wole Olanipekun’s chambers over a letter written by a staff of the Chambers, Ms. Adekumbi Ogunde, soliciting a brief from SAIPEM, in a $130 million suit against the Rivers State government.
The brief was already being handled by the chambers of Odein Ajumogobia, a former Attorney General of Rivers State.

Three days after, precisely on July 22, 2022, the NBA President, Olumide Akpata, had written to the founder of the Chambers, Chief Wole Olanipekun, who is also the Chairman, Body of Benchers (BoB), to recuse himself as Chairman over the incident.

This was despite the denial by the writer of the letter to SAIPEM, Ogunde, that the principal partners of the Chambers were not aware of the letter.
Besides, Ogunde’s letter was written more than two months after both SAIPEM and Rivers State government had reached an out of court settlement on the brief.

The writer herself was then about seven months old with the chambers.
However, in letter signed by the Secretary of the LPDC, Mr. Daniel Tela, the initial member review concluded that since there was no evidence to show that Ogunde acted with the consent of the Partners of the law firm, the applicant’s prayer for an investigation of the law firm could not be grounded in law.

The letter read: “With response to the Applicant’s prayer to consider whether the firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co are not liable to be disciplined, I hold the humble view that since there is no evidence to show that the respondent indeed acted with the knowledge and consent of the Principal Partners, especially with the Partner’s constant denial of the content of Exhibit 1 to the effect that the Respondent acted without the authority and consent of the Principal Partners or the firm, I cannot situate the angle of the Applicant’s prayer to both the Act and the Rules.

“Accordingly, I don’t see merit in recommending further investigation against the partners of Wole Olanipekun & Co. I so hold.”