Makinde and the Wrong Yardstick for Measuring a Lawyer | By Timilehin Kolade
By Timilehin Kolade
Governor Seyi Makinde’s recent attempt to question Senator Sharafadeen Alli’s accomplishment as a lawyer because of the perceived absence of a prominent litigation record reflects a narrow understanding of legal practice. His courtroom test may serve as political rhetoric, but it does not withstand professional scrutiny.
Litigation is law practice, but law practice is not synonymous with litigation.
The legal profession extends far beyond courtroom advocacy. Lawyers practise in corporate and commercial law, banking and finance, mergers and acquisitions, taxation, energy, telecommunications, regulatory compliance, legislative drafting, arbitration, conveyancing, negotiation and legal advisory services. A lawyer can spend decades solving complex legal problems without becoming a regular courtroom advocate.
A particularly instructive Nigerian example is Gbenga Oyebode, MFR, one of the country’s most prominent corporate and commercial lawyers. His professional reputation has been built substantially around corporate transactions, project finance, banking, energy, telecommunications, mergers and acquisitions and investment-related legal work. His career demonstrates that legal accomplishment cannot sensibly be reduced to the number of cases a lawyer has argued before a judge.
The point is not that Oyebode has never been associated with litigation; his firm is a full-service practice. The important point is that his individual professional standing has been established principally through sophisticated corporate and commercial practice. His example therefore exposes the weakness in treating courtroom appearances as the primary evidence of legal accomplishment.
Indeed, some of the most consequential work lawyers perform is precisely the work that prevents litigation. Drafting a sound contract, structuring a major transaction, advising a board, negotiating an agreement or ensuring regulatory compliance can prevent disputes before they become court cases. The lawyer who successfully prevents a dispute does not become less accomplished because there is no judgment bearing his name.
This does not mean Senator Alli’s legal record should be immune from scrutiny. Far from it. His professional history can legitimately be examined: where he practised, the areas of law in which he specialised, the clients he served, the transactions or advisory assignments he undertook and his contribution to the legal profession. If there are shortcomings in his legal career, they should be established through evidence.
But asking only, “What case has he handled?” establishes an unnecessarily narrow test. It mistakes one branch of legal practice for the entire profession.
Governor Makinde is entitled to scrutinise his political opponent’s record, just as Senator Alli’s record should be scrutinised by the electorate. But political debate should not be built upon a flawed professional premise.
A courtroom appearance demonstrates litigation experience; it does not, by itself, confer legal accomplishment.
The proper question is broader: What kind of legal work has a lawyer undertaken? How complex were the problems he solved? What value did his professional work create? What contribution did he make to clients, institutions, the profession and society?
These are more meaningful measures of professional accomplishment.
The courtroom is an important part of legal practice, but it is not the whole profession, and litigation is not the only currency of legal excellence.