PROFESSIONAL ETHICS — Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee — Finding of Infamous Conduct — No Requirement to Use Exact Word “Infamous”
Principle Statement
The respondent was not bound to use the word "infamous" in its findings; where the finding clearly indicates that the respondent intended to and did find the appellant liable of infamous conduct and consequently meted out the appropriate punishment under the law, the requirement of section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act is satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) NLC-123-190-2006(SC) at p. 11; Paras B–C.
"The respondent was not bound to use the word 'infamous' in its findings; where the finding clearly indicates that the respondent intended to and did find the appellant liable of infamous conduct and consequently meted out the appropriate punishment under the law, the requirement of section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act is satisfied."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the LPDC is not required to use the exact word “infamous” in its findings. If the finding clearly indicates that the respondent was found liable of infamous conduct and punishment was imposed, the statutory requirement is satisfied. The principle applies in disciplinary proceedings. It ensures that substance prevails over form. The principle reflects that the statutory requirement is about the finding, not the exact wording. It prevents technical objections based on the absence of the word. The court must examine the substance of the finding. The principle promotes fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
