The forged title, the quota litis and the Facebook post
Advocate Mbarga, of the Yaoundé Bar, has acted for Mr Fotso since 2021 in a land dispute over a plot at Nsam. On 3 March 2025 Mr Fotso reveals that the land certificate he intends to produce is 'not completely genuine' and asks Mr Mbarga to 'fix it with the notary'. He also pays 500,000 FCFA, which he asks Mr Mbarga to keep in his personal account 'to avoid taxes', without a receipt, and signs an agreement providing for a fee of 25 per cent of whatever is recovered, plus a promise never to instruct another lawyer. On 10 March Mr Fotso, without telling Mr Mbarga, consults Advocate Ngo, who practises under the same letterhead and shares chambers with Mr Mbarga. Ms Ngo accepts the file and posts on Facebook: 'Huge win on a land case for my client, photos attached', with the client's photograph, and plans a newspaper advertisement listing her fees and promising 'results within three months'. Mr Mbarga hears of this and now wants to withdraw.
1. May Advocate Ngo accept the file? What should she have done before accepting?
Read the worked answer
Sharing chambers and a letterhead is not a purely material arrangement: for professional secrecy and conflicts of interest, the firm is treated as one unit. Information received by one lawyer is imputed to the others, and a lawyer may not act where he holds, or is deemed to hold, confidential information relevant to the new matter.
Two difficulties arise here. First, Mr Mbarga has a live mandate from the same client on the same dispute. Ms Ngo is therefore taking over a file from her own chambers without the first lawyer's discharge or the client's settlement of the first fees - a situation where the firm's financial interest conflicts with the client's interest. Second, Mr Mbarga is likely to become a witness: he has been told that the title is not genuine. A lawyer who may be called to testify against his client's position cannot at the same time conduct the case.
The correct course was to decline, or at the very least to: (1) disclose the situation in writing to Mr Fotso; (2) obtain his informed written consent after he has been told of the risk; (3) obtain Mr Mbarga's discharge, with the fees settled; (4) ensure an effective internal separation of the files and that no information passes; and (5) where doubt remains, refer the matter to the Bâtonnier for guidance. Consent cannot cure a conflict where the first lawyer's information would be used against the client, nor where secrecy would be at risk. Accepting silently, as Ms Ngo did, is a disciplinary breach independent of the outcome.
2. Assess the fee agreement, the 500,000 FCFA, and the clause forbidding the client to instruct another lawyer.
Read the worked answer
The quota litis. An agreement giving the lawyer a share of the sum recovered - 25 per cent of whatever is obtained - is a pacte de quota litis and is prohibited. The fee must remunerate work and skill, not buy a share of the litigation; the client must not be made a partner of his lawyer in the proceeds. The clause is void, and signing it is itself a disciplinary offence. A result-based complement may be discussed in some systems, but it cannot be the essential or exclusive basis of the fee, and it may never amount to a sharing of the thing litigated.
The 500,000 FCFA. This is a provision on fees and costs. It must be receipted, recorded in the fee agreement, kept separately from the lawyer's personal funds, applied only to the file, and any unused balance returned with an account. Putting client money into a personal account 'to avoid taxes' is doubly wrongful: it breaches the rules on handling client funds, and it facilitates tax evasion, exposing the lawyer to criminal liability. The advocate must also issue an invoice and pay the applicable taxes; professional income cannot be concealed.
The 'no other lawyer' clause. A client's freedom to choose and change counsel is a matter of public order. A clause binding him never to instruct another lawyer is void, and using it to retain a client against his will is a breach of dignity. What the lawyer may do is claim the fees already earned and, where applicable, damages for a brutal termination - not restrain the client's freedom.
In short, the whole agreement should be rewritten: a written convention d'honoraires stating the method of calculation, the provision, the disbursements and the conditions of reimbursement, submitted to the Bar's scrutiny.
3. What are Mr Mbarga's duties and options regarding the Facebook post, the advertisement and the forged land certificate?
Read the worked answer
The Facebook post. Publishing the client's photograph and the fact of a 'huge win' reveals the existence and details of a mandate. It breaches professional secrecy, whatever the client's supposed enthusiasm, and it breaches the duty of dignity and restraint. Advertising, canvassing and self-promotion are prohibited; comparing oneself or claiming the 'biggest victory' is exactly what the prohibition targets. The client's image cannot be used without informed written consent, and even with consent a criminal lawyer's post may expose the client to harm - here a land dispute with a forged title.
The newspaper advertisement. Listing fees and promising 'results within three months' is prohibited publicity. A lawyer may maintain a sober plaque, letterhead and, where permitted, a restrained website giving name, address, qualifications and fields of practice; he may not promise results, because that misleads the public and compromises independence.
The forged certificate. Mr Mbarga must not present a document he knows to be forged: that would make him an accomplice to forgery and use of a forged document and would mislead the court. But he is bound by secrecy and cannot denounce his client. The lawful path is graduated: first, a firm written warning that he cannot use the document and that the client must regularise his title through the competent land services; second, if the client insists, withdrawal from the case, notified to the client and to the court in neutral terms that do not disclose the confidence; third, information to the Bâtonnier, who is himself bound by professional secrecy; fourth, disclosure to the Procureur only where the law compels it or where it is necessary for the lawyer's own defence. Throughout, he must return the unused provision with an account and issue receipts, so that his withdrawal leaves him beyond reproach.