It should be noted that in the absence of a lawyer who fulfils his professional obligations in accordance with the preservation, the conservation contract may be terminated by the client. It is a well-known fact that the Court of Justice can take note of the fact that at the end of each year, the lobbying secretaries of large/remarkable companies and Parastata will either be appointed as retainers or their conservation agreements will be renewed! As a general rule, in cases involving extensive specialized legal work, a conservation agreement is signed by the lawyer and the client. The agreement includes the nature of the services to be provided by the lawyer, the conservation costs collected and the duration of the conservation relationship. The advantage for lawyers is that they receive a mass payment in advance for a period for future instructions. If the client has fewer needs (instructions) for counsel during the duration of the deduction, this has no impact on the withholding costs already agreed and paid. What`s more, preservation ends up strengthening the relationship between a lawyer and his client. This judicial communication is good for legal matters. Industry practice requires savvy lawyers to use decent and strategic „lobbying“ channels for letters and preservation in order to stay afloat in their profession. That is part of what the law entails. Law firms that master the art thrive, while those who are not left with the „ambulance chasing“ and other dishonourable and unhonorable forms of earning letters. It is the activities of the latter category that attempt to regulate the rules of ethics in order to prevent the legal profession from being discredited. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. Mahmoud, JCA, found that the conservation contract had been terminated in 2009 and that there was no extension agreement.

Your Ladyship felt that it was in the nature of the conservation agreement to be re-educational for one year. The Tribunal was satisfied that in 2010 the complainant had not requested a written payment of a withholding tax, which confirmed that the custodian had ceased to do so. The conservation tax agreed for 2009 was paid to the applicant. The applicant did not charge a fee for 2010 and did not request a renewal. In 2011, the complainant wrote to the respondent claiming her rights to detention. The respondent replied that the observation had ceased since 2010 as a result of the applicant`s lack of renewal. There was no evidence that the complainant received additional instructions from the respondent and there is no evidence of work done in 2010 and 2011 or later. Annoyed, the complainant sued the respondent for claiming conservation rights from 2010 and 2011 and for subsequent years in which the contract would have been maintained. His complaints were dismissed by the court on unworthy merits. The facts of Babatunde v. Osun State College of Education are simple.

The complainant, Mr. Dosu Babatunde, a lawyer, was offered conservation in 2009 by the National Teaching University of Osun („respondent“). He was also a member of the school`s Board of Governors. The offer was made by a letter of offer which the complainant accepted in writing. No formal conservation agreement has been implemented. There was no agreement on the retention period or agreement on the renewal of the conservation period.