What is in a lawyer’s name?

07 Aug, 2016 - 00:08 0 Views

The Sunday Mail

Tichawana Nyahuma

A name must be noble, concomitant with uprightness and gets commands and respect.

So what’s in a name? After all, a rose by any other name still remains a rose.

No doubt, everybody desires a good name. And by a good name is not meant a name that sounds pleasant or sweet in the mouth or to the ear but a name that is associated with integrity, goodness, bounteousness, kindness or warmth.

A name must be noble, concomitant with uprightness and gets commands and respect.

Proverbs 10:7 says, “The memory of the righteous is blessed, But the name of the wicked will rot.”

In the world of commerce, a good name can actually mean the difference between the successes of an enterprise and its failure.

The goodwill of many a company or individual resides in its/his name.

Some readers may recall the story of the famous US golfer, Mr Tiger Woods who is said to have made millions out of his then good name.

However, all that changed when his other side involving extra marital affairs with several women was exposed. It was reported that Mr Woods lost a fortune after his name was soiled upon the exposition of the said affairs.

Closer home, many are amazed by Dynamos Football Club.

Although little is known about its assets, I can bet that its biggest asset is only its name that is arguably worth much more than the names of all the other PSL clubs put together.

So, the persons who run the affairs of that club at any given time dare not do anything that will put the name “Dynamos” into disrepute as the consequences would be frightening.

When it comes to vocations such as practicing law, accounting, auditing and so on, there is perhaps no bigger asset for a lawyer,accountant or auditor in that order,than his/her name, a good name.

In these undertakings and many others, there is no room for crooked minds or the slightest hint of dishonesty or chicanery.

That is why some law and accountancy firms that have operated from as far back as the time of colonisation in Zimbabwe in the 1890s, still carry the names of the original founders.

The presumption is that the persons who opened those firms set certain very high standards which earned them the respect and confidence of the market hence the names of those organisations have outlived all the other subsequent partners and or associates who have worked in those firms throughout all these years.

In this contribution, I wish to confine myself to the legal profession.

I examine the practice that is common within the legal fraternity where, upon the retirement, death or elevation to serve as a judge or other “higher” capacity of the lawyer by which the law firm is known, the firm nevertheless continues with business in the name of that person or persons as if nothing would have happened.

In my view, in those situations where a lawyer with a very good name goes into retirement or dies and the firm continues to exist in his name, no issues should arise. The remaining members can only mismanage the firm and damage that name at their own peril.

If they should do so, it might slightly affect the retired lawyer whose name by which the firm will still be known but that will be to a minimal extent as he would have himself ceased to circulate commercially unless he was still earning some royalties out of the use of his name by his erstwhile legal firm.

From where I am sitting, concerns, challenges and embarrassments will arise in cases where the lawyer by which the firm is known becomes a judge and the firm nevertheless continues to run in his name.

That practice does not sit very well with me because chances are high that society, the great majority members of whom are unsophisticated and not familiar with the workings of judicial processes, will be justified to think that the former practicing lawyer actually continues to operate a law firm when at the same time, he has now become a judge.

The correct position of course is that upon elevation to the bench, the now judge completely disconnects and dissociates himself/herself from that firm.

He will have no further dealings and or interests in his former law firm.

If a matter from his former firm was to find its way to his desk, he will deal with it as he would any other case.

In fact, the affected judges are known to excuse themselves from such cases.

But even then, the questions that are bound to arise are these; what happens in the mind of the unsophisticated litigants, are they not justified in concluding that justice may not be done or will not be seen to be done if the other side is represented by a firm which carries a judge’s name and his own firm does not?

Are members of the public not likely to think that a law firm that is known by the name of a sitting judge somehow enjoys the patronage and direct support of that judge and therefore there may be some advantages in using that particular firm?

Even if the judge in question does not in fact sit in judgement of cases originating from “his” firm, is he not going to somehow influence the judges conducting those cases as the judges in fact work together?

In those cases that attract much publicity such as the recent private prosecution of Munyaradzi Kereke or Evan Mawarire and if the lawyers who represented these gentlemen had hailed from law firms that are named after sitting judges, does it not follow that in the court of public opinion, the judges would have been credited or somehow associated with any decisions reached in those cases?

Would members of the public been out of order if they had said; “ah, he was convicted because the lawyer who represented him is from judge so and so’s law firm who himself was not a very good lawyer when he was still in practice?”

Or; “We know why he was acquitted, it is because the lawyer who acted for him has the direct support of judge X, him being the owner of the legal firm that employs him.” Are such questions not legitimate?

Does this augur well for the legal profession generally?

Likewise, where a lawyer is appointed a judge but his former firm continues to carry on business under its old name as I have already said and the remaining persons now in charge of the firm then commit certain misdemeanours such as converting trust funds to their own use at the expense of their clients, certain grave concerns will arise.

Inevitably, the Law Society will step in and order that firm to be placed under curatorship and eventually, to shut down. Although the judge whose name is still boldly emblazoned at the entrance to that firm has absolutely nothing to do with the misconduct of his former colleagues, he or she is most likely to be painted with the very same brush and cannot therefore escape being scandalised and embarrassed by such an incident.

These observations lead me to implore the relevant authorities that it may now be time to rethink the present arrangement as I have outlined above.

I think there ought to be a rule that says that once a lawyer by which his law firm is known becomes a judge, then so soon thereafter, his erstwhile legal firm must cease to operate under that name.

Can you imagine a legal firm carrying a Chief Justice’s name? In my view, that would in its self be a scandal of monumental proportions.

I rest my case!

Tichawana Nyahuma is a lawyer and writes in his personal capacity. Feedback: [email protected]

 

Share This:

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds