S’Court right to ban ‘Barrister’ title, SANs insist

n n

Senior Advocates of Nigeria have unanimously backed the Supreme Court’s directive prohibiting lawyers from using the title ‘Barrister’ as a prefix to their names in official communications, describing the move as a reaffirmation of an existing legal and professional standard rather than the introduction of a new rule.

n

The directive, contained in a memorandum dated July 13, 2026, was issued by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Kabir E. Akanbi, on the instruction of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.

n

The circular directed litigation staff, legal practitioners, court registrars and lawyers to discontinue the use of the title ‘Barrister’ before their names in all official correspondence, records, documents, identity materials and other official engagements with immediate effect.

n

It stated that the use of the title as a prefix is inappropriate and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism expected within the Supreme Court.

n

Heads of departments and unit heads were also directed to ensure strict compliance with the directive.

n

Reacting to the development, legal practitioners and senior advocates said the directive merely formalised a long-established position within the legal profession.

n

In a phone interview on Sunday, Prof Sam Erugo (SAN) said the Supreme Court had simply restated the obvious because ‘Barrister’ has never been a professional title.

n

“The Supreme Court directive merely restated the obvious. ‘Barrister’ has never been a professional title,” Erugo said.

n

He explained that lawyers who complete their training at the Nigerian Law School and satisfy the Body of Benchers are called to the Nigerian Bar as “Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” stressing that the phrase describes a lawyer’s professional qualification and duties rather than a title.

n

According to him, unlike England, where lawyers qualify either as barristers or solicitors, Nigerian legal practitioners possess dual qualifications.

n

“In fact, except to the extent that the public is ignorant, describing one as a ‘Barrister’ suggests that he is not a ‘Solicitor’.

n

“I don’t know of any jurisdiction where Barrister is a professional title,” he said.

n

He added that the practice is consistent across common law jurisdictions and maintained that the Supreme Court’s directive would have no real impact on lawyers who already adhere to accepted professional standards.

n

“Before now, the average well-trained and knowledgeable legal practitioner understands this fact and does not add ‘Barrister’ as a prefix to his name in official communication or documents,” he said.

n

According to him, the directive is aimed at a small number of practitioners who continue to disregard established convention.

n

“The directive is clearly directed at the few who refuse to do the right thing and are wont to be unprofessional by introducing themselves as ‘Barrister’ to show off,” he added.

n

Erugo added that knowledgeable legal practitioners have always avoided using the prefix in official communications, noting that the accepted practice is to append “Esquire” after a lawyer’s name.

n

“The directive is clearly directed at the few who refuse to do the right thing and want to be unprofessional by introducing themselves as Barrister to show off,” he added.

n

Also speaking, Isiaka Olagunju (SAN) described the Supreme Court’s directive as timely and said members of the Bar had long warned colleagues against the practice.

n

“Well, the prefix ‘Barrister’ is, of course, very wrong. This is just the first time the Supreme Court will come out officially to condemn it,” he said.

n

Olagunju maintained that using ‘Barrister’ as a prefix amounts to professional misconduct because lawyers are admitted as “Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

n

He said, “We have been telling our colleagues before now that adding the prefix ‘Barrister’ to your name amounts to misconduct.

n

“You qualify as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. That is your qualification and legal status, not a prefix to your name,” he said.

n

He observed that the practice is rarely found in court processes and is more common at social functions.

n

“It is very rare to see it in court processes. It is only at social functions that people use ‘Barrister’.

n

“Since the Supreme Court has condemned it, I don’t expect anybody to file court processes and add ‘Barrister’ to it,” he added.

n

Olagunju further noted that in the United Kingdom, lawyers qualify either as barristers or solicitors and do not use ‘Barrister’ as a title before their names.

n

Offering a legal perspective, Wolemi Esan (SAN) said the directive reinforced an already settled statutory and disciplinary position.

n

“The CJN’s directive, properly understood, restates an existing legal position rather than announcing a novel prohibition. ‘Barrister’ has never been a freestanding professional title under Nigerian law,” he said.

n

Esan explained that the Legal Practitioners Act defines a legal practitioner by reference to the entitlement to practise as a barrister and solicitor, describing the scope of enrolment rather than conferring a title.

n

He also cited the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee’s decision in NBA v. Ofomata (2017) 5 NWLR, which held that prefixing ‘Barrister’ before a legal practitioner’s name is unprofessional and improper.

n

According to him, the Chief Registrar’s memorandum should be viewed as an administrative enforcement of an already settled legal position.

n

Esan said the directive would require law firms, court registries and legal practitioners to revise letterheads, pleadings, affidavits, identity materials and other official documents bearing the ‘Barrister’ prefix.

n

He added, however, that the more significant impact would be on professional regulation, arguing that the directive could encourage the formal codification of the position in the Rules of Professional Conduct.

n

“It may in time push for the codification of the position in the Rules of Professional Conduct, converting what has been informal disciplinary practice into an unambiguous, binding standard,” he said.

n

Comparing Nigeria with other common law jurisdictions, Esan noted that the country’s fused legal profession is more closely aligned with Ghana than England and Wales, where barristers and solicitors are separate professions.

n

He described the directive as more than a correction of terminology.

n

“This is not merely a correction of terminology but a quiet reminder that professionalism is sustained by precision.

n

“A profession’s discipline shows itself first in the small things, in how a lawyer signs, how a lawyer is addressed, and how a lawyer describes what they are entitled to do.

n

“Nigeria has simply been called back to that discipline, and I welcome it,” he said.

n

Also speaking, legal scholar, Eyimofe Atake (SAN), argued that the designation of ‘Barrister’ is merely a description of professional status and not a title.

n

In a 12-part legal commentary titled “A Description, Not a Title: Why ‘Barrister’ Cannot Stand Before a Lawyer’s Name,” Atake said the memorandum issued on July 13, 2026, by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court was legally sound and professionally justified.

n

Rejecting criticism that the directive was elitist or amounted to an unnecessary intervention by the CJN, Atake said it merely restated the correct legal and professional position.

n

“I take the opposite view, and I take it without hesitation. The memorandum is right in substance, modest in scope, and issued by precisely the authority best placed to issue it,” he wrote.

n

According to him, the directive neither creates a criminal offence nor amends the Legal Practitioners Act or the Rules of Professional Conduct.

n

Rather, he said, it is an administrative measure regulating official records and correspondence within the Supreme Court.

n

Atake explained that the memorandum is limited to official dealings with the apex court and does not extend to private conversations or social interactions.

n

He noted that the CJN, through the Chief Registrar, was well within her administrative powers to prescribe how lawyers’ names should appear in the records of the Supreme Court, which maintains the roll of legal practitioners.

n

Tracing the history of the word ‘Barrister,’ Atake argued that it originated from the English Inns of Court as a description of a lawyer’s professional status rather than a title of honour.

n

He maintained that throughout the history of the legal profession in England, the designation has always appeared after a lawyer’s name, such as “John Smith, Barrister at Law,” and never as a prefix.

n

According to him, the Nigerian practice of writing ‘Barrister’ or ‘Barr.’ before a lawyer’s name has no basis in law or professional tradition.

n

Citing Sections 2, 4, 5, 22 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Atake argued that the law recognises legal practitioners as persons entitled to practise as barristers and solicitors but does not confer ‘Barrister’ as an honorific title.

n

He further relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Okafor v. Nweke and SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC, saying the judgments emphasised that the law recognises lawyers only by the names enrolled on the Roll of Legal Practitioners.

n

Atake also referred to the decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee in Nigerian Bar Association v. Ofomata, where the tribunal described the use of ‘Barrister’ as a title before a lawyer’s name as unprofessional and replaced it with “Esq.” in its records.

n

Beyond Nigeria, Atake said the practice in England and Wales, Canada and Australia supports the use of ‘Barrister’ only as a post-nominal description rather than a prefix.

n

He criticised what he described as the growing culture of title inflation within the legal profession, extending his criticism to lawyers who use “Dr” without earning doctoral degrees and those who adopt the title “Professor” without holding substantive academic chairs.

n

According to him, such practices undermine professional integrity and diminish the value of legitimately earned academic and professional distinctions.

n

Atake argued that the Chief Justice’s directive should be seen as an effort to promote accuracy and professionalism rather than an attack on tradition.

n

He maintained that lawyers remain free to describe themselves as “Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria” after their names, or to use “Esq.” and other legitimate titles where appropriate.

n

“The Supreme Court’s memorandum… simply asks the profession to describe itself accurately in the records of its own apex court,” he wrote.

n

He concluded that there has never been any legal basis for styling a lawyer as “Barrister Stephen Blogs,” insisting that the correct form remains “Stephen Blogs, Esq., Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

n

The consensus among the senior advocates is that the Supreme Court’s directive does not alter the law governing legal practice but reinforces long-standing professional ethics by ensuring that official documents and communications conform to established standards of the legal profession.

n n