*NBA President, Akpata Calls For Reasonability & Fairness In Price Fixing Regulation
*Price Fixing To Commensurate With Work-Done—FCCPC CEO, Irukera
*Price Fixing Must Be Acceptable & Business Friendly—Raymond Mgbeokwere
*1991 Legal Practitioners Order, Unrealistic & Outdated—Gloria Etim
*Price Negotiation Should Be Part Of School Curriculum—Bunmi Omeke
*Price Fixing Should Be Determined By Various Indices—Reginald Aziza

The challenges associated with the establishment and enforcement of a scale of charges for legal services in Nigeria was at forefront of the discussion at the 13th Annual Business Luncheon of SPA Ajibade & Co., which held today, the 3rd of December, 2020, and had as its theme, ‘The Pros, Cons and Challenges of Establishing and Enforcing a Scale of Charges for Legal Services in Nigeria’, and saw various reputable panelists, the likes of; Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN, Mr. Olumide Akpata, Mr. Babatunde Irukera, Mr. Raymond Mgbeokwere. Other speakers at the event were, Mrs. Gloria Etim, Mrs. Bunmi Omeke, and Mr. Reginald Aziza.

Delivering his comments on the theme through his representative, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, noted that although the Legal Practitioners Act [LPA] empowers the Remuneration Committee to set the necessary scale of fees in the profession, such scale of charges are largely not complied with due to certain factors that play out when fixing fees in the legal sector. He noted that there exist an ongoing consultation between the office of the Attorney General and other relevant sector players in other to create a realistic and implementable scale of fees, whilst acknowledging that some challenges exist, especially the enforceability of a national scale of charges.

On his part, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association [NBA], Mr. Olumide Akpata noted that in considering any price fixing, fairness and reasonability must be at the heart of any such regulation. For him, there exist the problem of over pricing and underpricing, with the latter problem being the very challenge necessitating the discourse. He considered that in establishing a scale of charges, some options that may exist include; a full cast system with a discretion to charge lower, a uniform fixed charge with no discretion to charge lower or higher, also full floors with the discretion to charge higher, as well as charges based on certain factors, such as location, experience amongst others. For the NBA boss, the establishment of the full floors option would serve as a better choice, but for the possibility of being in conflict with the provisions in the FCCP Act on price fixing. He noted that the major advantage with the price fixing is that it increases the earning and pricing power of the lawyer, whilst protecting the dignity of the profession. However, the adverse effect of such price fixing would be the creation of shadow markets in services rendered by members of the Bar, thereby leading to loss of job/client for profession. He considers that there exist the need to define and expand the scope of services exclusively meant for lawyers, and ensure punitive measures are adopted in cases of breach.

The Chief Executive of the Federal Consumer Protection Commission, Mr. Irukera, who was represented at the event noted that, any propose scale of charges must consider the level of work done by the professionals. The Chief Executive noted that even though a scale of charge may seem to restrict competition within a given sector, the purpose and intention for the creation of such scale of charges however would be of great consideration by the commission in determining is the scale of charges is necessary. The FCCP boss noted that the issue of price fixing in any profession is neither rigid, nor prohibited under the FCCP Act, in so far as it does not completely affect the competition in any given sector or industry.

For the Head of Legal Services for First Bank, Mr. Raymond Mgbeokwere, whatever regulation to be birthed, same ought to be accepted by legal Practitioners as theirs, and must be business friendly in nature. He noted that the previous regulations on scale of pricing were largely ineffective due to shortchanging actions by some Legal Practitioners.

Similarly, the Chairperson of NBA Eket Branch, Mrs. Gloria Etim, made an in-depth comparative analysis of the Nigerian and Ghanaian scenario, stating that whilst the regulations under the Legal Practitioners Order of 1991 remains largely unrealistic and outdated, the fee structures under the Act are also quite low, and lastly that the poor level of noncompliance from lawyers, the regulation in Ghana remains are largely realistic, flexible and negotiable. The said law, according to her, made the recognition of seniority in the profession as one of the determinants in price fixing.

In sharing her view on the theme, the Managing Partner of JGC Partners, Mrs. Bunmi Omeke considered that the challenges associated with the lack of a national scale of charge is that, it somewhat encourages the acceptance of pricing fees that are somewhat very low to the disadvantage of some other law firms. For her, a challenge with having a national scale of charge is the free market economy which is operational in Nigeria. For any scale pricing to work effective, she suggested that the scale should deal only with the minimum chargeable price, and not the maximum pricing. Also, calling for cooperation amongst lawyers for the regulation to work so as not to undervalue the profession by low pricing charges. She also made a case for incorporating the price negotiation as part of the curriculum to students of law at an early stage.

Sharing his considerations on the theme, Mr. Reginald Aziza through his representative noted that, in attempting to formulate any workable system for scale pricing, it is necessary to consider amongst other things, the use of incentive, the need to create a flexible scale pricing and allow various indices determine the fee charge, as well as the need to adopt fee charges that would encourage a free market economy. He noted that the Nigeria legal space does not have a deep market, hence the resort to undercutting by some lawyers. For him the problem lies with the need to ensure that those who are charging high are not overcharging, and those charging low are not undercharging. A rigid framework, he noted, would only end up creating more problem than is intended to be solved.

Earlier at the event, Mr. Ajibade had appreciated participant at the event, whilst laying the foundation for the discussion. The law firm also announced the winner of its essay competition, with Mr. Mohammed Nasir Ibrahim taking home the winning price.