PROFESSIONAL ETHICS — Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee — Locus Standi of Non-Client to Complain
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) NLC-123-190-2006(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B:
"What the petitioner needs to sustain his complaint against the appellant is not privity of contract but locus standi which he has established by proving that he has sufficient interest in the subject matter."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a non-client can complain to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee if they have sufficient interest in the subject matter. Privity of contract is not required. The principle applies where a third party has been affected by a legal practitioner’s conduct. It ensures that the disciplinary process is accessible to those with legitimate interest. The principle reflects the public interest in regulating the legal profession. It prevents practitioners from escaping discipline due to lack of privity. The court must determine whether the complainant has sufficient interest. The principle promotes accountability in the legal profession.