The Lawyer-Executor in Nigeria: Navigating Estate Administration and Ethical Duties

In Nigeria’s intricate legal landscape, the lawyer-executor occupies a dual role, wielding fiduciary authority under estate administration laws while bound by the stringent ethical standards of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC). Tasked with executing a testator’s will, the lawyer-executor must navigate the Administration of Estates Laws, probate processes, and professional obligations to ensure transparent asset distribution and beneficiary protection. This post examines the legal framework, ethical pitfalls, and judicial precedents shaping this role, with a focus on Lagos State and the cautionary tale of Nigerian Bar Association v. A. O. Koku, Esq.

The Role and Authority of the Lawyer-Executor

An executor, appointed by a testator’s will, is entrusted with managing and distributing the deceased’s estate per the will’s terms. Under Nigeria’s Administration of Estates Law (Lagos State, Cap A1), the executor’s authority is validated through a grant of probate from the High Court’s Probate Registry. For lawyer-executors, this role demands meticulous adherence to both statutory duties and the RPC’s ethical mandates.

Key responsibilities include:

Asset Management: Identifying, valuing, and preserving estate property, including collecting debts and paying taxes (Administration of Estates Law, s. 34).
Inventory Preparation: Compiling a detailed account of assets and liabilities (s. 35).
Asset Distribution: Allocating assets as stipulated in the will (Wills Law, Cap W2).
Accounting: Providing transparent accounts to beneficiaries and the court (s. 36).

Executors wield significant rights, such as the authority to act post-probate, sue or be sued on the estate’s behalf (Olawoyin v. Attorney-General, Northern Nigeria [1961] All NLR 269), claim reasonable remuneration (s. 33), and delegate tasks while remaining accountable. However, lawyer-executors face heightened scrutiny due to their professional obligations under the RPC.

Legal Framework for Estate Administration

Estate administration in Nigeria blends state statutes, customary practices, and English common law. In Lagos, the Administration of Estates Law (Cap A1) and Wills Law (Cap W2) are pivotal, supplemented by federal laws like the Probate and Administration incrocio Estates Law (1959). Key features include:

Grant of Probate: Executors apply to the Lagos Probate Registry with the will and death certificate, securing probate after 14 days if uncontested (High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Order 55).
Letters of Administration: Required for intestate estates, issued after 21 days with public notice.
Distribution Rules: For intestate estates, s. 46 prioritizes spouses and children, with detailed provisions for scenarios like surviving spouses without issue or no surviving family, where the estate reverts to the state as bona vacantia.
Court Oversight: The Lagos High Court resolves disputes and may remove executors for misconduct.

Executors must file tax returns, pay estate duties (10% in Lagos), and maintain transparency, ensuring compliance with statutory timelines and beneficiary rights.

Ethical Obligations Under the Rules of Professional Conduct

The RPC (2007), enforced by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), imposes rigorous standards on lawyer-executors. Relevant provisions include:

Competence and Diligence (Rule 1): Ensuring proficient estate administration.
Conflict of Interest (Rule 14): Requiring disclosure and consent for potential conflicts.
Client Funds (Rule 16): Mandating separation of estate funds from personal accounts and prompt remittance.
Undue Influence (Rule 17): Prohibiting manipulation of testators.
Reasonable Fees (Rule 23): Ensuring fees are proportionate.

Breaches risk severe sanctions—suspension, disbarment, or fines—under the Legal Practitioners Act (s. 11).

A critical ethical issue arises when lawyer-executors draft wills. While permissible under the Wills Law (s. 9), drafting a will that benefits the lawyer-executor raises red flags. Rule 24(1) prohibits drafting wills that confer benefits on the lawyer or their family, and Rule 24(2) mandates disclosure of conflicts. Failure to comply risks invalidation for undue influence, as seen in Ojo v. Gharoro [2006] 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 173.

Case Study: Nigerian Bar Association v. A. O. Koku, Esq.

The case of Nigerian Bar Association v. A. O. Koku, Esq. (LPDC, Complaint No: BB/DCNB/039) underscores the perils of ethical lapses. A. O. Koku, a lawyer-executor, was appointed under the will of George William Emodi Nicol, alongside two co-executors. Koku appointed his firm, A. O. Koku & Co., as estate solicitors, paid it £20,000 in fees, and participated in the premature winding up of the testator’s company, Apalagada Investment Limited, against the testator’s wishes.

A beneficiary, Rowland B. Nicol, petitioned the Nigerian Bar Association, alleging mismanagement, self-appointment as solicitor, and misappropriation. The LPDC found Koku guilty of professional misconduct, citing:

Conflict of Interest: Koku’s dual role as executor and solicitor violated RPC Rule 49(a), which prohibits abusing client confidences for personal gain. The LPDC held that a lawyer cannot serve as both executor and solicitor due to inherent conflicts (p. 450, paras. B-F).
Improper Fees: Paying £20,000 to his firm breached Rule 49(b), which mandates prompt accounting and prohibits commingling funds (p. 453, para. C).
Breach of Testator’s Intent: Winding up the company prematurely disregarded fiduciary duties.

The LPDC emphasized that “morality and law” preclude such overreach, reinforcing that lawyer-executors must prioritize beneficiaries’ interests over personal gain.

Practical Implications and Risks

Consider a hypothetical: Mr. Ade, a Lagos lawyer, drafts Mrs. Okonkwo’s will, bequeathing himself her Ikoyi property as executor. After her death, he secures probate and delegates estate management to Ade & Co., charging exorbitant fees. Beneficiaries challenge the will, alleging undue influence (Ojo v. Gharoro), and contest the fees (RPC, Rule 23). The Lagos High Court could void the will or surcharge Ade (Administration of Estates Law, s. 39), while the LPDC might sanction him for breaching Rules 14 and 16.

Delegation to a law firm is permissible if fees are reasonable and funds remain separate (s. 34). However, self-dealing or excessive charges risks legal and professional repercussions, as Koku’s case illustrates.

Conclusion

The lawyer-executor in Nigeria wields significant responsibility, balancing fiduciary duties under the Administration of Estates Law with the RPC’s ethical imperatives. While drafting wills or benefiting as a beneficiary is lawful if transparent and consensual, conflicts of interest and self-dealing invite judicial and disciplinary scrutiny. The Koku case serves as a stark reminder: lawyer-executors must uphold transparency, segregate funds, and prioritize beneficiaries to avoid legal and professional peril. As Nigeria’s estate administration framework evolves, stricter oversight and ethical clarity will be essential to safeguard trust in this critical role.