Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) have thrown their weight behind the Supreme Court’s directive prohibiting lawyers from using “Barrister” as a title before their names in official communications.
The legal experts described the directive as a reaffirmation of an existing professional standard rather than the introduction of a new rule.
The directive was contained in a memorandum dated July 13, 2026, issued by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Kabir E. Akanbi, on the instruction of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.
The circular instructed lawyers, court registrars, litigation staff and other legal professionals to stop using “Barrister” as a prefix in official letters, court records, identity materials and other formal documents with immediate effect. It stated that the practice is inconsistent with the level of professionalism expected at the Supreme Court.
Heads of departments and unit leaders were also directed to ensure full compliance.
Reacting to the development, Professor Sam Erugo (SAN) said the Supreme Court merely restated a position that has always existed.
According to him, “Barrister” is not a professional title but part of the description of a lawyer’s qualification.
He explained that lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar are admitted as “Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” which reflects their professional status rather than serving as a title before their names.
Erugo noted that, unlike England where lawyers qualify either as barristers or solicitors, Nigerian lawyers are qualified to practise as both.
He added that many experienced legal practitioners have long avoided using “Barrister” as a prefix in official correspondence, preferring to use “Esquire (Esq.)” after their names instead.
He described the directive as one aimed at the few practitioners who continue to ignore established professional practice.
Isiaka Olagunju (SAN) also welcomed the decision, saying lawyers had long advised colleagues against adopting the title.
According to him, using “Barrister” as a prefix amounts to professional misconduct because it is not recognised as a title under Nigerian law.
He observed that the practice is rarely seen in court documents and is more common at social events.
Legal scholar and Senior Advocate, Wolemi Esan, described the directive as an administrative enforcement of an already settled legal position.
He pointed out that the Legal Practitioners Act recognises legal practitioners by their entitlement to practise as barristers and solicitors but does not create “Barrister” as a title.
Esan also cited the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee’s decision in NBA v. Ofomata (2017), which ruled that using “Barrister” before a lawyer’s name is improper and unprofessional.
He said the directive would require lawyers and law firms to update official documents, letterheads, court filings, affidavits and identity materials where the prefix is used.
According to him, the decision could eventually lead to the formal inclusion of the rule in the Rules of Professional Conduct, making it an explicit requirement for all legal practitioners.
He described the directive as a reminder that professionalism is reflected even in the smallest details.
Another Senior Advocate, Eyimofe Atake, also defended the directive in a detailed legal commentary, arguing that “Barrister” is merely a description of a lawyer’s professional qualification and not an honorific title.
He maintained that the Chief Justice acted within her administrative powers by directing how lawyers’ names should appear in official records of the Supreme Court.
Tracing the history of the word, Atake explained that even in England, the term has traditionally been used after a lawyer’s name, such as “John Smith, Barrister-at-Law,” and never as a prefix.
He argued that there is no legal basis in Nigeria for styling lawyers as “Barrister John Doe.”
Atake also criticised what he described as the growing culture of title inflation within the legal profession, extending his concerns to lawyers who adopt academic titles they have not legitimately earned.
He stressed that lawyers remain free to describe themselves after their names as “Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria” or simply use “Esq.”
Across the legal profession, senior advocates agreed that the Supreme Court’s directive does not change the law but reinforces long-established ethical and professional standards by ensuring official communications reflect proper legal practice.
