Lawyers, the world over, would love us to call them learned friends.
By deduction, senior lawyers are perceived to be ‘more learned’ than their other colleagues; but when senior lawyers cannot tell something as simple as conflict of interest, then you begin to wonder whether it is a genuine mistake or rather overt professional greed.
Yesterday, April 29th 2019, Commercial Court’s Hon Justice Paul Gadenya ruled that another top city law firm, Sebalu & Lule Advocates, was severally in breach of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations when they agreed to represent dfcu Bank in a case brought against the bank by Ruparelia Group, yet the law firm knew, that having acted for the Group before, they were in possession of confidential information that would be detrimental to their former client’s interests.
In his ruling, Justice Gadenya, did not mince his words, he told them: “For the record, the engagement of the 1st respondent (Sebalu & Lule Advocates) as counsel for the 2nd respondent (dfcu) violated Regulation 4, 9 and 10 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.”
Rule No.4 pertains prejudicing former clients.
Rule 9 forbids an advocate from “appearing before any court or tribunal in any matter in which he or she has reason to believe that he or she will be required as a witness to give evidence.
Rule 10 stops advocates from using their privileged relationship with their clients for their own personal advantage.
On this basis, Justice Gadenya barred Sebalu & Lule Advocates against acting for dfcu and Bank of Uganda against the Group.
Gadenya’s ruling is similar and related to another Commercial Court ruling by Hon Justice David K Wangutusi who in December 2017 disqualified two other law firms MMAKS Advocates and Bowmans Uganda from representing Bank of Uganda in a case the Central Bank brought against city businessman Sudhir Ruparelia’s on the grounds that the two law firms have previously acted for the businessman and were therefore in possession of privileged information.
Significant as these two rulings are for justice, it is not every day that you will meet a Sudhir Ruparelia with enough clout and legal literacy to take on the law firms and beat them at their own game. One then wonders, who will then save the largely gullible and vulnerable public from predatory and professional greedy lawyers?
According to a 2017 Uganda Law Society (ULS) report, there was a 32.6% increment in complaints against advocates from 150 complaints to 199 complaints. For the registered 774 law firms in 2017 according to the Ministry of Justice, this represents a complaints to law firms ratio of 25.7% which is on the very high side. Given that the Disciplinary Committee was able to dispose of only 35.2% (70) of the complaints, the amount of pain being visited on the public by the same people who purport to be guardians of the law becomes so evident.
So does the need for an urgent intervention from the regulators of the profession such as the Department of Law Council as well as Uganda Law Society!
Bank of Uganda obsession with these 3 law firms
As if this is not disturbing enough, another question lingers over Bank of Uganda’s excessive obsession with the above named 3 law firms that the central bank will risk everything to work with them.
MMAKS has been for ages the retained external law firm for Bank of Uganda, which is principally okay, but not when they have been severally named in a number of questionable dealings- but most importantly for providing what is now believed to be substandard legal services during the takeover and sale of a number of defunct banks; advice whose quality has been questioned by both the Attorney General and parliament.
But somehow the Central Bank is still holding onto them- even when the Governor has raised a red flag over excessive bills!
Another questionable decision by the Central Bank is why they have up to now maintained the services of Sebalu & Lule Advocates even when in the early stages of their appointment a red flag on conflict of interest was raised. Did BoU have to wait for this long to dismiss the law firm, even when the writing was on the wall- especially after the December 2017 ruling by Wangutusi on MMAKS and Bowmans?
In his closing remarks to COSASE, Prof Tumusiime Emmanuel Mutebile, the BoU Governor committed to bring about sweeping reforms- the public is waiting.