Introduction
We are familiar with the popular idiom, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”. A goose is a female bird—a large water bird with similar features like a duck; and a gander is its male version. Some writers traced this popular idiom to an ancient English proverb which literally means that the sauce used in serving the goose will also work for the gander.
Generally, modern usage of this idiom simply illustrates the need for balance, fairness, and avoidance of double-standards in the treatment of people. Of course, it has also been used to advocate for gender equality—as men and women should be held to the same moral or ethical standards.
The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) recently suspended Chief J. K. Gadzama SAN after finding him guilty of professional misconduct as contained in its Final Direction delivered on 29 July 2026. Not only did the decision send some chilling effects down the spine of Nigerian lawyers, it has also raised some eyebrows when compared to the 2024 LPDC’s decision which disbarred another legal practitioner, Ms. Adekunbi Ogunde (Kunbi).
Kunbi’s Case
Sometime in 2022, Kunbi, a legal practitioner and a partner in Wole Olanipekun & Co. at the time, wooed a multinational company, Saipem Nigeria, a subsidiary of Saipem S.P.A. for a brief. The brief had to do with a USD130 Million case at the Rivers State High Court filed by the Rivers State Government against the company.
The problem with this client-pursuit strategy was not only some of the embarrassing remarks in Kunbi’s email to Saipem. For instance, Kunbi boasted that the presence of the Lead Partner in the firm (Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, OFR) would “significantly switch things in favour of Saipem” and that he was the “head of the entire legal profession in Nigeria.”
Kunbi also acknowledged that at the time she poached Saipem, she was aware that the company was being represented by another law firm (Ajumogobia & Okeke). In what seemed to be a fair offer, Kunbi proposed that her firm at the time should be hired to work with the existing firm in order to bring in more influence on the table.
The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners do not permit the act of unprofessionally soliciting for a brief in this manner. Where a party is represented by a lawyer with respect to a matter, no other lawyer is allowed to communicate with that party regarding the subject matter without the authority of the lawyer already representing the party. The objective is clearly to prohibit client hijack.
Following a petition dated 19 July 2022 lodged by the Nigerian Bar Association at the LPDC, the LPDC had no difficulty in finding Kunbi guilty of professional misconduct and consequently disbarred her in 2024.
Interestingly, in August 2022, about two years before the LPDC’s Final Direction, Kunbi took a voluntary leave of absence from legal practice. She also acknowledged her wrongs and tendered apologies. Her former law firm also denounced her conduct and apologised to its offended counterpart. Notwithstanding, Kunbi was struck with the heaviest hammer of disbarment. Kunbi’s attempt to switch things for Saipem led to LPDC switching off the light against her.
Gadzama’s Case
While the LPDC locked out Kunbi from the Bar in 2024, Chief Gadzama was dragged to the LPDC in the same year by another lawyer, Mr. Chris Alashi. The allegation against the towering figure and highly respected Senior Advocate of Nigeria had to do with client poaching/hijacking.
In a Final Direction delivered on 29 July 2026, the LPDC found that Chief Gadzama was “guilty of denigrating the Applicant’s [Mr. Alashi’s] standing and poaching his clients by enticing them with money and gradually winning some of them over and those [who] still rejected him, he made Respondents [in an appeal]”. You can read the background story here which relates to Chief Gadzama’s role in attempting to set aside a negotiated Consent Judgment (in the sum of N8 Billion) entered in 2015 and pursue the enforcement of the original judgment sum to the tune of N41.8 Billion. The initial Judgment was delivered in 2007 against the Federal Government of Nigeria and in favour of the victims of the 2001 atrocious military action at Zaki Biam in Benue State which led to plenty of loss of lives.
In addition to the finding, the LPDC also found that Chief Gadzama filed a Notice of Change of Counsel in court and sought to represent some set of the Judgment Creditors who denied hiring and instructing him as their counsel. There was also the allegation of forgery which the LPDC found worthy of attention.
After a review of the “overwhelming documentary evidence”, the LPDC found Chief Gadzama guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him for three years.
Comparing both Cases
Comparing the cases of Kunbi and Chief Gadzama, one of the things that comes to mind is, why was Kunbi disbarred instead of being suspended? Conversely, why was Chief Gadzama suspended instead of being disbarred? Kunbi acknowledged her wrongs, and was quite apologetic. Chief Gadzama never acknowledged any wrongdoing. Kunbi never appeared to force her way with Saipem as there was no finding of any attempt to entice any person with money. She merely boasted of her Lead Partner’s pedigree. The LPDC never made any forgery remarks against Kunbi. There was no finding that Kunbi filed a court process purporting to represent a party without consent and authority.
Perhaps, it would be worthy of attention to precisely determine the underlying principles by which the LPDC prescribes punishments after finding an erring legal practitioner guilty of professional misconduct especially in the cases of Kunbi and Chief Gadzama as reference points.
Conclusion
I believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In my opinion, if the LPDC found suspension more appropriate in Chief Gadzama’s case, then Kunbi deserved suspension rather than disbarment. I’m minded to lean towards suspending the practice license of a legal practitioner in cases of professional misconduct except in exceptional cases.
