Xavier Sosu is hence seeking a declaration from the court that the actions of the GLC in their case against him, constituted a breach of the law.

[contextly_sidebar id=”McqKKgHEZmDpFkFpBsZNWAjXGf6BNsqs”]He is also seeking a perpetual injunction preventing the GLC from proceeding with any investigations against him, until the Council ‘fulfills the statutory and constitutional requirements of prescribing rules of procedure and publishing same.”

The writ, which was sighted by citifmonline.com, accused the Disciplinary Committee of the GLC of making “biased, prejudicial and resentful” statements against Mr. Sosu during his hearing.

According to him, the comments by the members of the Disciplinary Committee, which he claims were recorded, showed that the General Legal Council could not fairly preside any case involving him.

“I verily believe that unless ordered and restrained by this court, the respondent has no intention of respecting my constitutional rights to fair hearing, and Respondent would continue to disrespect, undermine, mistreat and violate my rights,” the writ added.

“I verily believe that the conduct of the disciplinary committee of the Respondent, does not only violate the 1992 Constitution, but also it violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDR) – particularly Article 10 on Right to fair trial.”

Sosu banned

The GLC announced back in June 2017, that it had banned the lawyer for overcharging a client and also advertising his services on social media.

It said, within the 3-year period, Lawyer Francis Xavier Sosu “shall not hold himself out as a Legal Practitioner or attend Chambers, or render, or purport to render any professional legal service to any person whomsoever, wheresoever.”

The General Legal Council said Xavier-Sosu was barred for overcharging a client, one Francis Agyare, when he represented him in a Human Right case in Accra.

According to the General Legal Council, Lawyer Sosu charged his client GH¢50,000, which was “excessive” and an “overestimation” for the services rendered, although he [Sosu] had told the client he was offering his legal services for free.

It also added that, the lawyer had flouted its Professional Conduct and Ettiquette rules by advertising his legal firm’s name and address on social media platform, Facebook.

–

By: Edwin Kwakofi/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Xavier Sosu sues ‘biased’ General Legal Council appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The judge, Justice Henry Kwofie fixed the date after parties in the case made their respective oral submission to the court.

[contextly_sidebar id=”yEh7794sEiwbytxp8YQvlOOEObsOplQl”]Francis Sosu filed the application seeking to put on hold his suspension until the final determination of his appeal by the court but lawyers for the General Legal Council opposed to the the application for stay of execution pending appeal of suspension.

They argue that the applicant did not file any notice of appeal at the registry of the GLC which means there is no valid appeal for a stay of execution.

Background

The Ghana Legal Council earlier in June 2017, banned Francis Xavier-Sosu, a renowned Human Rights lawyer, from practicing as a lawyer for three years, for overcharging a client, one Francis Agyare, when he represented him in a Human Right case in Accra.

It said that, within the 3-year period, Lawyer Xavier-Sosu “shall not hold himself out as a Legal Practitioner or attend Chambers, or render, or purport to render any professional legal service to any person whomsoever, wheresoever.”

According to the Legal Council, Lawyer Xavier-Sosu charged his client GH¢50,000, which was “excessive” and an “overestimation” for the services rendered, although he [Sosu] had told the client he was offering his legal services for free.

But the embattled lawyer appealed the council’s decision and subsequently applied for a stay of execution of his 3-year ban.

–

By: Fred Djabanor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Ruling on Xavier Sosu’s stay of execution case slated for July 26 appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The adjournment followed a request by lawyers for the Council to consult their clients following what they call new allegations against some officers of the Legal Council.

Francis Sosu filed the application seeking to put on hold his three-year suspension from the legal profession pending the final determination of his appeal by the court.

Background

[contextly_sidebar id=”KLbbR74GblBd1eAOiTE6bBG45TXe9qNt”]The Ghana Legal Council earlier in June 2017, banned Francis Xavier-Sosu, a renowned Human Rights lawyer, from practicing as a lawyer for three years, for overcharging a client, one Francis Agyare, when he represented him in a Human Right case in Accra.

It said that, within the 3-year period, Lawyer Xavier-Sosu “shall not hold himself out as a Legal Practitioner or attend Chambers, or render, or purport to render any professional legal service to any person whomsoever, wheresoever.”

According to the Legal Council, Lawyer Xavier-Sosu charged his client GH¢50,000, which was “excessive” and an “overestimation” for the services rendered, although he [Sosu] had told the client he was offering his legal services for free.

But the embattled lawyer appealed the council’s decision and subsequently applied for a stay of execution of his 3-year ban.

–

By: Fred Djabanor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Xavier Sosu’s stay of execution plea adjourned appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

This comes on the back of a three-year ban the council handed human rights lawyer, Francis Xavier-Sosu, for overcharging a client and also advertising his services on social media.

[contextly_sidebar id=”4tdaypwt2PLBywAoKOsxRolkXfqEQ2E1″]Korsi Senyo in his writ is seeking a declaration that the General Legal Council’s failure to prescribe the rules for its Disciplinary Committee as required by the Legal Profession Act, 1960 breaches the 1992 Constitution.

“A declaration that the failure by the Defendant [General Legal Council] to prescribe the rules of procedure for its Disciplinary Committee in a Legislative Instrument as required by Section 19(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) is in breach of Articles 23 and 296(c) of the 1992 Constitution as relates to the right to a fair hearing of matters before the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee as affects parties appearing before same and the requirement by the Constitution that a person or authority vested with discretionary power shall publish regulations to govern the exercise of the discretionary power,” Senyo stated in his writ.

He also wants the Supreme Court to declare that the criminal offences contained “in Sections 19(5) and (7) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) are in breach of Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution because the said offences are not defined.”

The GLC earlier in June banned Francis Xavier-Sosu, a renowned Human Rights lawyer, from practicing as a lawyer for three years, for overcharging a client, one Francis Agyare, when he represented him in a Human Right case in Accra.

It said that, within the 3-year period, Lawyer Xavier-Sosu “shall not hold himself out as a Legal Practitioner or attend Chambers, or render, or purport to render any professional legal service to any person whomsoever, wheresoever.”

According to the General Legal Council, Lawyer Xavier-Sosu charged his client GH¢50,000, which was “excessive” and an “overestimation” for the services rendered, although he [Sosu] had told the client he was offering his legal services for free.

The embattled lawyer who had earlier appealed the council’s decision subsequently applied for a stay of execution of his 3-year ban.

Below are the rest of the reliefs sought by Emmanuel Korsi Senyo:

• A declaration that Section 16(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct And Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (LI 613) are in breach of Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution as Act 32 and LI 613 do not define “grave misconduct in a professional respect” but yet prescribes punishment for lawyers found guilty of “grave misconduct in a professional respect”, thereby breaching the affected lawyer’s right to know the nature and ingredients of the offence he is being charged with.

• A declaration that the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee lacks jurisdiction to enforce Section 19(5) and (7) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) against any lawyer as same is in breach of Article 88(3) and (4) of the 1992 Constitution which vests the prosecution of criminal offences in the Attorney-General.

• A declaration that the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee lacks jurisdiction to enquire into Section 19(5) and (7) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) against any lawyer as same is in violation of Article 19(1) of the 1992 Constitution which vests the enquiry into criminal offences in the Courts.

• A declaration that Section 17(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) is in violation of Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution by virtue of the fact that the composition of the Disciplinary Committee denies lawyers appearing before the Disciplinary Committee a fair hearing.

• A declaration that Rule 2 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct And Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (LI 613) violates Article 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution with respect to a lawyer’s right to free speech and expression.
• A declaration that Rule 8 and 9(9) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (LI 613) violates Article 24(1) of the 1992 Constitution as the said Rules 8 and 9(9) of LI 613 violate a lawyer’s economic rights.

• An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee from hearing any disciplinary matters until this suit is concluded.

• Any other order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make.

–

By: Godwin Akweiteh Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post General Legal Council dragged to Supreme Court over ‘draconian’ rules appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

According to her, the practice is “distasteful” and amounts to ‘touting’, a behavior unacceptable by the bar.

[contextly_sidebar id=”dihzwwLuIudVMogVAc16FuOUa2QMmzQX”]Reacting to a question on claims that the judicial service was operating archaic laws that barred advertisement on social media during her vetting in Parliament on Friday, Sophia Akuffo said such issues were mainly regulatory issues and did not have much to do with the judicial service.

However, she said, “Personally, I believe that dignity of the bar is as important as the dignity of the judiciary, and the idea of lawyers touting themselves on social media is personally distasteful to me. But that aside, the law is there clearly against touting because touting is an improper conduct on the part of the lawyer.”

She added that, “Self-advertisement is one of those frowned on in many jurisdictions, there are some that permit it, but I have not studied the scope of those permissions. But Facebook, Twitter… at the moment will not fall in the permissible areas. You can have a website and put yourself on your website.”

Justice Sophia Akuffo, however added that, the laws and regulations within the legal profession were constantly reviewed, and therefore when it becomes necessary, such a review would be done.

Many legal luminaries have expressed their varied opinion on the issue of touting, after a renowned human rights lawyer, Francis Xavier Sosu was slapped with a 3-year ban by the General Legal Council for overcharging a client and touting on social media.

Many lawyers said the punitive measure was too harsh and unfair, with others calling for a review of regulations against advertising, arguing that, the law against the practice was drawn in the 1960s when social media was non-existent, hence the advent of social media and other modern communication methods must be considered by the laws.

–

By: Jonas Nyabor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post I’m against lawyers advertising on social media – Sophia Afuffo appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

This comes after his formal appeal at the Court of Appeal to challenge the disciplinary action of the GLC against him.

[contextly_sidebar id=”qWciNmfN6whCrC9L2LQwpSN40ZKVaA4c”]A date is yet to be set for the hearing on the application, which will determine whether or not the ban should take effect before the substantive appeal case is heard.

The GLC earlier this month announced that it had banned the lawyer for overcharging a client and also advertising his services on social media.

It said, within the 3-year period, Lawyer Francis Xavier Sosu “shall not hold himself out as a Legal Practitioner or attend Chambers, or render, or purport to render any professional legal service to any person whomsoever, wheresoever.”

The General Legal Council said Lawyer Xavier-Sosu was barred for overcharging a client, one Francis Agyare, when he represented him in a Human Right case in Accra.

According to the General Legal Council, Lawyer Sosu charged his client GH¢50,000, which was “excessive” and an “overestimation” for the services rendered, although he [Sosu] had told the client he was offering his legal services for free.

It also added that that lawyer had flouted its Professional Conduct and Ettiquette rules by advertising his legal firm’s name and address on social media platform, Facebook.

But Francis Xavier Sosu, who believes his ban is unfair, is seeking a declaration that the General Legal Council erred in imposing the ban on him for overcharging a client and advertising his firm on social media.

He is also seeking a declaration that the charge of touting and personal advertisement leveled against him by the General Legal Council is discriminatory and contrary to Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution among others.

Some lawyers have commiserated with him, describing the punishment as too harsh.

–

By: Jonas Nyabor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Xavier Sosu applies to halt execution of 3-year ban appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

At one of the group sessions, the issue of lawyer advertising came up. I argued forcefully against the current rules that prohibit advertising and described them as colonial relics that have become shorn of their relevance.

The other participants applauded me “to the very echo.”

The then President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), who chaired the session, disagreed with me.

Those rules together with a few other undesirable ones continue to sit pretty on our statute books.

England

The practice of law in England with its Greco-Roman influences, rules, conventions and practices dates as far back as the 12^th Century.  At some point the advocates were clergymen until the Church banned them in 1207. At that time and many years later notions of public service and nobility were the crowning glory of the advocate.

As far back as 1340, England separated barristers from solicitors. In simple terms, the barristers went to court and the solicitors were their clients. The solicitors on the other hand were the ones that interfaced with the outside world.

It is said that only nobles with marquee surnames and means practiced as barristers and solicitors. They did not advertise their noble profession. In that era, touting and advertising one’s “trade” was deemed befitting for only those on the lower parts of the ladder of social standing.

Through changing vistas, the Law Society emerged in 1825 to regulate the law profession, causing the Society of Gentleman of 1793 and all other such bodies to pale into oblivion.

In 1970, restrictions against advertising started experiencing a subtle pushback and this intensified in 1978. This culminated in the Law Society’s decision starting from 1^st October 1984 to permit solicitors in England and Wales to advertise in newspapers, on radio and at their premises. Currently, barristers are also “permitted to advertise in any way that is consistent with the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion”.

The United States of America

Having been colonized by the British, the Americans quite naturally embraced the rule against advertising. They also adopted the distinction between solicitors and barristers but only for a relatively short period of time. Indeed many Americans who wanted to become lawyers at the time actually studied in England and returned with the imbibed culture.

The American Revolution however marked the beginning of the rebellion against strict British tendencies but did not immediately lead to a removal of the restrictions on advertising by lawyers.

It all changed when two young men, John Bates and Van O’Steen set up a legal clinic in the State of Arizona in 1974. Two years later, as their practice began to fall on hard times, they advertised their practice and its relatively low rates in “The Arizona Republic” newspaper, against the rules of the Arizona State Bar.

The disciplinary committee of the State Bar recommended a six-month suspension each for the young lawyers. The young men sought refuge in the Arizona Supreme Court but lost. They proceeded to the United States (US) Supreme Court itself, where the Court relying on its earlier decision affecting pharmacists, ruled that the lawyers had a 1^st Amendment right to advertise their service. The court relied on “the commercial speech doctrine”. That was in 1977.

The US Supreme Court expanded its decision in 1982 in the case of In re R.M.J. This led to changes in the American Bar Association (ABA) rules.

Kenya

In 2012, in the case of Okeyo Omwanza George & Anor vs. Attorney-General & 2 Others, a newly admitted lawyer convinced Justice David Majanja to declare among others that the rule prohibiting Kenyan lawyers from advertising was unconstitutional.

In 2014, the Law Society of Kenya approved rules to enable lawyers to advertise.

Ghana

Being a former British colony, Ghana at independence in 1957, had all the trappings of the strict rules preventing advertising by lawyers.

However, Ghana never adopted the British distinction between barristers and solicitors. In Ghana, a lawyer is both a barrister and a solicitor at the same time. However, as of 2017, Ghanaian lawyers do not enjoy the right of advertising that barristers and solicitors in England & Wales currently enjoy.

The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969, LI 613 forbids a practicing Ghanaian lawyer from advertising whether directly or indirectly except that they may have their names on name plates and stationery.

Analysis of the Ghanaian Situation

As students of Advocacy and Legal Ethics at the Ghana School of Law, we were taught that it is the quality of your work that will sell you. We were told that satisfied clients will tell others about you and bring you repeat business.  We were taught that touting and advertising would debase our noble profession.

What that viewpoint does is to force all lawyers to scramble for space under the wings of old and established law firms for as long as they can endure it. It cements the hold of these few names and denies newer and smaller firms the opportunity to compete and to grow.

It also creates social cost in the sense that clients are denied critical information about which lawyers are in the competitive space and with what levels of expertise and at what competitive price. In the end most of the legal work ends up going to a small group of law firms who in a sense become a composite monopoly and become placed wittingly or unwittingly in a rent-seeking posture.  They dictate the terms and pricing of the market defend the rules that protect their interest and cause deadweight loss by eliminating those who cannot afford their rates. The younger generation is forced to wait for its turn and the cycle continues.

If a lawyer has expertise in energy law, corporate finance, mergers and acquisition or any other area of law, she is not allowed to announce it to a client seeking that expertise. For that matter, the client is likely to end up at a law firm whose name is synonymous with law in general but not necessarily the expertise required.

The claim that your work will sell you also assumes that all work is done in a courtroom and in the open. It is a faulty way to look at the law in this day and age.

Meanwhile, foreign law firms who are not regulated locally find ingenious ways including writing letters and directing clients to their websites (advertising). They enter the local market and take the choice legal jobs, make a lot of money, keep their skills updated as a result and still fall on the established old law firms for local assistance when required.

Today, law practice is not limited to the noble and wealthy class. It is as much a business as any other. It requires investment, sacrifice and the payment of taxes. It is subject to nearly the same innovations demanded by the efficient market.

We must remove the shackles of these rules against advertising and doing business generally for lawyers to enable our country to reap the full benefits of this potentially viable area of our national life. After all, competition breeds excellence.

–

By: Robert Nii Arday Clegg

The writer is a practising lawyer in Ghana

The post The lawyer and the rule against advertising [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

He is among other things seeking a declaration that the General Legal Council erred in imposing the ban on him for overcharging a client and advertising his firm on social media.

[contextly_sidebar id=”vUeSE9sVjyccpX2lBtjh39FqJ1TvL35d”]He is also seeking a declaration that the charge of touting and personal advertisement levelled against him by the General Legal Council is discriminatory and contrary to Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.

In his appeal filed today [Wednesday], he is seeking 8 other declarations and praying the court to quash his 3-year ban.

Other declarations he is are that the prohibition on advertising, touting and/or publicity as provided for under Rule 2(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Ettiquette) Rules 1969. (L.I 613), is vague and/or overboard and inconsistent with Articles 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.

– That in convicting the Appellant of touting and personal advertisement, the General Legal Council erred in law since there was no identifiable complainant as required by the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1960 (Act 32).

– That the General Legal Council erred in law by failing or neglecting to serve any formal complaint of touting and personal advertisement on the Appellant, thereby failing to act fairly and comply with the requirements of the law as required by Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution.

– That in inquiring into and convicting the Appellant of touting and personal advertisement that General Legal Council erred in law by constituting itself into complainant, prosecutor and judge in a matter before it, thereby violating the rules of natural justice and the right to Fair Trial of the Appellant as guaranteed by Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution.

– That the General Legal Council erred in law in charging and convicting the Appellant of “grave misconduct in a professional respect” in that there is no law specifically making touting and personal advertisement “grave misconduct in a professional respect”.

– That sentence of mentorship by a senior lawyer for a period of one (1) year imposed on the Appellant by the General Legal Council is alien to the provision of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L.I 613).

He indicated that he will state more grounds on which his ban should be squashed after receiving the decision of the General Legal Council on the matter.

–

By: citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Francis Xavier-Sosu files appeal to quash 3-year ban appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The Council in a statement available to citifmonline.com cited at least two major offences by the lawyer including overcharging a client, as reasons for its decision.

[contextly_sidebar id=”nFaIdNRmjBKpJoPbhkJ2J3MCyR3r0li7″]It said, within the 3-year period, lawyer Francis Xavier Sosu “shall not hold himself out as a Legal Practitioner or attend Chambers, or render, or purport to render any professional legal service to any person whomsoever, wheresoever.”

Citi News gathered earlier on Saturday [June 3], that the renowned  Human Rights lawyer had been barred from holding himself out as a lawyer but details were not given about what necessitated the action.

But the General Legal Council said lawyer Xavier-Sosu was barred for overcharging a client, one Francis Agyare, when he represented him in a Human Right case in Accra.

According to the General Legal Council, lawyer Sosu charged his client GH¢50,000, which was “excessive” and an “overestimation” for the services rendered, although he [Sosu] had told the client he was offering his legal services for free.

The Council said Mr. Sosu failed to appear before its Disciplinary Committee when he was invited to offer an explanation for his action which was deemed a misconduct.

The Council added that lawyer Xavier-Sosu had flouted its Professional Conduct and Ettiquette rules by advertising his legal firm’s name and address on social media platform, Facebook.

It said lawyer Sosu had confessed guilt in both issues hence the 3-year ban.

“Lawyer Sosu was convicted on his own plea of guilty on both counts and was sentenced to a period of three (3) years suspension commencing 2^nd day of June, 2017 and ending of 1^st day of June, 2020. He is to be mentored by a senior for a period of one year commencing 2^nd June, 2020 and ending on 1^st June 2021.”

It added that, “the senior to mentor him shall lodge periodic reports on him [lawyer Sosu] to the General Legal Council’s Disciplinary Committee at the end of the every month during the mentorship period.”

‘Francis Sosu’s relationship with Francis Agyare’

Lawyer Francis Xavier-Sosu successfully defended Mr. Francis Agyare, 46, who was unlawfully detained for 14 years without trial to be compensated with GHs200,000.

Mr. Agyare was arrested on January 5, 1994 in James Town in a swoop together with some 56 others.

‘I’ll appeal ban’

Meanwhile, the human rights lawyer, who confirmed the ban to Citi News, has given indications that he will appeal the 3-year ban imposed on him.

He believes the ban is unfair, and thus will challenge it on Monday [June 5, 2017].

–

By: Jonas Nyabor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Xavier-Sosu was banned for ‘overcharging’ client – Gen. Legal Council appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

He believes the ban is unfair, and thus will challenge it on Monday, June 5, 2017.

[contextly_sidebar id=”1jwUIC3NJfl1BiqTfqYd2PkRpLcKd0LH”]The lawyer, who confirmed to Citi News that he had been banned by the council, did not state why the decision was taken against him.

Some reports say the council took the decision after it found him guilty of professional misconduct. The specific offence is yet to be known.

But he said his appeal will capture details of the action and tackle the claims of the General Legal Council.

Lawyer Francis Xavier-Sosu  is a famed human rights lawyer who is credited with helping many wrongfully jailed Ghanaians gain their freedom especially through  the government’s special program, ‘Justice For All’.

He is a known member of the opposition  National Democratic C0ngress (NDC), who contested in the Madina parliamentary primary to lead the NDC in 2016 elections, but lost to the then incumbent MP, Alhaji Sorogho.

In 2016 whiles his party, the NDC was in power, he ensured the release of a man who had been wrongfully jailed for attempting to kill the then President, John Mahama at his church.

The man, Charles Antwi, was finally diagnosed to be mentally unstable, and the lawyer who had described his incarceration as a miscarriage of justice, ensured his release.

–

By: citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post I’ll appeal my ban – Francis Xavier Sosu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.