Ghana School of Law PLC: Law Practice Management (GLC) common mistakes
Ghana School of Law PLC: Law Practice Management (GLC) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a client pays money into the firm's client account, the candidate records the receipt as firm income in the office (general) account and treats it as fees earned, rather than recognising it as trust money held for the client until a bill is delivered and the client's consent to transfer is obtained.
Candidates conflate the two accounts because in everyday business a receipt is revenue. They have often memorised the label 'client account' without internalising the fiduciary logic that the money never belongs to the firm, so the accounting entries look correct on the surface while breaching the trust rules. Under exam pressure the temptation is to reach for the simplest double entry.
What to do instead
Build a habit of asking, for every receipt, 'whose money is this and on what basis am I holding it?' Practise a fixed sequence: client account receipt (debit bank, credit client ledger), then on billing, transfer only the billed amount with the client's authority, then credit fees to the office account. Drill with three or four worked scenarios (advance retainer, settlement proceeds, third-party disbursement) until the dual-ledger pattern is automatic.
The candidate identifies a conflict of interest only where the two clients are directly adverse in litigation, and misses conflicts arising in a joint retainer, a conveyancing transaction where the firm acts for buyer and lender, or a corporate matter where a former client's confidential information is relevant to a new client's matter.
Conflict analysis is taught through dramatic examples, so candidates pattern-match to 'suing each other' and stop there. The subtler tests (duty of loyalty, confidentiality, substantially related matters, informed consent and independent representation) require a structured check that candidates do not run under time pressure.
What to do instead
Memorise and apply a three-limb checklist for every retainer: (1) Is there a direct or indirect adverse interest? (2) Is there a risk of misuse of a former or existing client's confidential information? (3) Is the lawyer's independent judgment at risk? Then state the remedy explicitly - decline, obtain informed written consent where permitted, or cease acting - and cite the relevant professional conduct rule rather than a general assertion of fairness.
On a billing question the candidate computes a fee on the full value of a claim or transaction without checking whether a scale fee, a statutory cap, a contingency prohibition, or a written fee agreement governs, and presents the arithmetic as the answer without addressing the basis of charging.
Candidates treat fee questions as pure arithmetic and rush to the calculator. Ghanaian practice constrains how fees may be set (scale fees for certain conveyancing and probate work, restrictions on contingent fees in contentious matters, the requirement for a written agreement in some contexts), and the examiner is usually testing the basis of charge, not the multiplication.
What to do instead
Before computing, write one line identifying the basis: hourly, fixed, scale, or value-based, and whether any rule restricts it. Then compute, then add a short paragraph on the retainer terms, disbursements, VAT and the client's right to be informed. Practise two or three past-style scenarios where the 'obvious' calculation is displaced by a scale or a rule.
The candidate answers a professional conduct scenario by describing what a 'reasonable lawyer' would do in general moral terms, without naming the specific duty engaged (competence, confidentiality, avoiding conflicts, honesty to the court, client's instructions versus duty to the court) or the disciplinary consequence of breach.
Conduct questions invite moralising, and candidates find it easier to write about fairness and integrity than to pin the answer to a rule. Many have read the rules once and remember the themes but not the structure, so they hedge with generalities that earn little credit.
What to do instead
For every conduct scenario, structure the answer in four moves: identify the duty, identify the competing duty or interest, state the correct course of action, and state the consequence of breach (discipline, civil liability, or loss of the retainer). Learn the handful of duties that cover most scenarios and practise mapping ten short fact patterns onto them.
Asked to draft a letter before action, a statement of claim, or an engagement letter, the candidate produces a fluent narrative letter with no clear statement of the cause of action, no specific relief sought, no particulars, and no compliance with the formal requirements of the relevant rules of court or the Legal Profession rules on client engagement.
Candidates write the way they speak and mistake readability for drafting competence. Pleadings and engagement letters are judged on structure and completeness, and candidates have often never compared a model pleading against the rules that prescribe its contents.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page skeleton for each document type: parties, jurisdiction, material facts in numbered paragraphs, cause of action, relief, and signature block; for engagement letters, scope, fees, client obligations, and complaint route. Before writing, list the mandatory elements from the rules, then draft to the list, then check every element is present. Practise drafting against a strict time limit.
The candidate advises on court procedure without checking whether the correct forum, the correct originating process, the limitation period, or a mandatory pre-action step (such as a demand or statutory notice) has been satisfied, and proceeds straight to drafting the substantive claim.
Substantive law is more interesting to revise than procedure, so procedural preconditions are learnt late and shallowly. Candidates also assume procedure is uniform across courts, when the High Court, Circuit Court, District Court and specialised divisions differ in jurisdiction, process and timelines.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed 'gateway' checklist for every case-management question: court and jurisdiction, limitation, parties and capacity, originating process, service, and any mandatory pre-action notice. Answer the procedural question first, then the merits. Build a one-page comparison table of the courts' civil jurisdiction and processes and revise it before the exam.
On an ADR or negotiation question the candidate describes mediation or arbitration in abstract terms and recommends 'settling out of court' without identifying the dispute resolution clause, the seat, the appointment mechanism, the enforceability of an arbitral award, or the difference between mediation and arbitration outcomes.
ADR is often revised as a single lump of 'alternative' process, so candidates cannot distinguish the mechanisms or their legal effects. They also default to litigation as the only enforceable route and use ADR language decoratively.
What to do instead
Learn a comparison grid across negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation on five axes: who decides, binding or not, enforceability, confidentiality, and cost and time. For any scenario, first read the contract for a dispute resolution clause, then advise on the clause before advising on the forum. Practise drafting a short arbitration clause and a mediation agreement.
When asked about file management, client confidentiality, or retention, the candidate answers in generalities about keeping files 'safe and confidential' and omits practical controls: access permissions, retention and destruction schedules, secure disposal, backup, and the distinction between the client's property and the firm's own papers.
Records and technology are treated as administrative afterthoughts rather than as conduct obligations. Candidates underestimate how often confidentiality breaches arise from poor information handling rather than from deliberate disclosure, so they do not think in terms of controls.
What to do instead
Prepare a short checklist of information-handling controls: who may access a file, how it is stored and backed up, when it is returned to the client, how long it is retained, and how it is destroyed. Link each control to the confidentiality duty and to the client's right to their papers. Apply the checklist to a short scenario to test recall.
The candidate describes marketing and business development as advertising and lists promotional channels, without addressing the professional conduct limits on advertising and touting, the prohibition on sharing fees with non-lawyers, or the access-to-justice dimension such as pro bono, legal aid and unbundled services.
Marketing is assumed to be a business topic outside the conduct rules, and access to justice is assumed to be a policy topic outside practice management. Candidates therefore miss the questions that sit at the intersection, which are exactly the ones examiners favour.
What to do instead
Frame every marketing answer around two constraints: what the conduct rules permit in advertising and solicitation, and what the firm's business model is (fee structure, referral arrangements, referral fees). Add a paragraph on access to justice: pro bono targets, legal aid, reduced-fee or unbundled services, and how these fit the firm's sustainability.
The candidate treats risk management and professional indemnity as a single insurance question, and answers by describing 'taking out insurance' without identifying the risks to be managed (missed deadlines, conflicts, undertakings, client money, reliance on unverified information) or the practical controls that reduce them.
Indemnity insurance is the visible, memorable part of the topic, so it crowds out the management side. Candidates also lack a mental model of how claims actually arise in practice, which is mostly from process failures rather than from bad legal analysis.
What to do instead
Learn a risk register of six to eight recurring claim triggers (diary and limitation failures, conflicts, undertakings, trust account errors, failure to confirm instructions in writing, delegation without supervision) and pair each with a control (dual dairies, conflict checks, written undertakings register, reconciliation, engagement letters, supervision). In answers, name the risk, the control, and the residual exposure covered by indemnity.