LPDC Clears Lagos Lawyer, Olaide Adedapo, Of Misconduct, Awards ₦200,000 Against Petitioner

The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has dismissed a petition alleging professional misconduct against a Lagos-based lawyer, Olaide Adedapo, Esq., declaring that the allegations were not established by credible and legally admissible evidence.

The Committee, in its direction delivered on July 27, 2026, further found that Adedapo acted professionally in the discharge of his duties to his client and the court.

The decision followed a petition filed by Pablo Amaran, who had previously represented Val Oil Trading S.A. in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1127/2015 before the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division.

Amaran had alleged, among other things, that Adedapo constituted a case file in respect of the matter but failed to inform the Federal High Court that an appeal concerning the case was pending before the Supreme Court.

He also challenged Adedapo’s filing of a Notice of Change of Counsel on January 9, 2019, arguing that the lawyer ought not to have assumed representation of Val Oil in the circumstances.

Adedapo denied the allegations, maintaining that he was properly instructed by Val Oil after the company disengaged Amaran as its counsel and that he acted in accordance with the Rules of Court and Rules of Professional Conduct.

In determining the petition, the LPDC considered whether Adedapo committed professional misconduct by failing to disclose the pending Supreme Court appeal and whether his acceptance of the brief and filing of the Notice of Change of Counsel amounted to professional misconduct.

On the allegation concerning the pending appeal, the Committee ruled in favour of Adedapo, noting that the evidence before it did not establish that he was present when the matter first came up for rehearing.

The Committee particularly relied on documentary evidence showing that Anthony Chukwudi, a junior lawyer in Amaran’s firm, appeared for Val Oil when the matter came up before the Federal High Court on November 26, 2018.

The LPDC held that Adedapo’s position that he was unaware that the matter had been listed for hearing had not been effectively controverted by evidence capable of establishing otherwise.

Consequently, the Committee found that there was no sufficient evidence linking Adedapo to the alleged failure to disclose the pending Supreme Court appeal.

On the Notice of Change of Counsel, the Committee equally rejected the complaint, holding that the evidence established that Val Oil had disengaged Amaran and subsequently instructed Adedapo to represent the company.

The LPDC stated that “the filing of a Notice of Change of Counsel” was within the ordinary procedural framework governing a change of legal representation.

The Committee further recognised the right of a litigant to choose and change counsel, relying on Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as judicial authorities including Unity Bank Plc v. Olatunji.

According to the Committee, “a litigant is entitled to choose his or her legal representative”, adding that the subsequent engagement of another lawyer did not, without more, amount to professional misconduct.

The LPDC also stressed the importance of evidence in disciplinary proceedings, holding that serious allegations against legal practitioners must be established through credible and admissible evidence.

The Committee emphasised that “the Applicant, having alleged professional misconduct against the Respondent, bore the burden of establishing the allegations.”

It, however, concluded that the burden had not been discharged on the evidence presented before it.

The Committee further observed that where material affidavit evidence is not effectively controverted, such evidence may be given substantial weight in determining the facts in issue.

It also stressed the importance of official court records in resolving disputes concerning appearances and proceedings, noting that the records before it were material in determining which counsel appeared when the matter first came up for rehearing.

In its final determination, the LPDC dismissed the petition against Adedapo and found that the allegations of professional misconduct had not been established.

More significantly, the Committee found that Adedapo “was highly professional in discharging his duties to his Client and the Court.”

The LPDC also questioned the basis of the petition brought by Amaran against Adedapo and awarded ₦200,000 cost against Amaran in favour of Adedapo.

The decision in Pablo Amaran v. Olaide Adedapo, Esq. reinforces the principle that disciplinary proceedings against legal practitioners must be determined on the strength of evidence rather than mere allegations.

It also highlights the importance of proper record-keeping, accurate court records and compliance with procedural requirements when a lawyer takes over representation of a client.