No Two Jobs For Lawyers – Court

Não é difícil assumir que jogar por dinheiro é realmente lucrativo. Para apostar de verdade, você precisa criar uma página pessoal. O registro no site oficial Pin Up pinup-entrar.com envolve o preenchimento de um pequeno formulário e não leva muito tempo. Você só tem que realizar 2 ações.
No Two Jobs For Lawyers – Court
By Dickson Jere
A lawyer was employed by a State-run institution as Company Secretary but was simultaneously also running a private law firm. A dispute arose over his employment contract with the institution, which led to him suing in the High Court. However, the institution raised a question of law in the High Court, arguing that the lawyer was not allowed by law to have two jobs.
The High Court Judge, after hearing both sides, ruled that the lawyer under the Zambian law was indeed proscribed from having two jobs.
Unhappy with the decision, the lawyer launched an appeal in the Court of Appeal where he argued that there was nothing wrong for him to have two jobs as the Company Secretary one was not that busy. He also contended that he had actually obtained permission from the Board Chairman to run his law firm in his free times.
A panel of three Judges determined the appeal and ruled that there was nothing wrong with the lawyer having two jobs as in-house counsel as well as private practice (See my earlier article on this case).
This decision riled the company and consequently climbed the ladder and lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court. Three Judges – led by deputy Chief Justice – relooked at the case and the “Legal Practitioners’ Practice Rules”.
They then determined thus;
“Rule 24(2) specifically prohibits employed legal practitioners from providing legal services to anyone other than their employer,” the Supreme Court noted.
“Such practitioner, is therefore, limited in his practice to only for one client, the employer,” the Judges said.
The Court said allowing employed lawyers to run own law firms will bring conflict of interest and unfair competition in the market as the in-house lawyers will be diverting business to their own firms using inside information and trade secrets.
“This risk is higher and can be more damaging in institutions such as banks and other financial institutions,” the Judges noted.
“Hence the need to restrict the activities of employed legal practitioners to their employers only” the Judges said.
The Supreme Court noted that business for private law firms in Zambia has been invaded by other professions in areas of Conveyancing, Liquidations, Receiverships and Business Rescues which used to be for lawyers.
“This has resulted in business of provision of legal services shrinking with private practitioners having to scramble for limited business,” the Judge said and expressed concern that LAZ did not stop this practice as a regulators of lawyers.
“LAZ, chose instead, to allow the transgression to go unimpeded,” the Judges noted, and urged LAZ to take action on such issues timely.
Case citation – Occupational Healthy Safety Institute v James Mataliro -Appeal No. 13/2025 and Judgement rendered last week on 19th September, 2025.
Lecture Notes;
1. This is very important case that has shaped the practice of law. The Court explained that nothing stops the lawyer from doing other work such as lecturing or arbitration but for the practice of law in private firms when already employed. Simply, you cannot draw a monthly salary and then go and compete with your colleagues in the private sector for the same business.
2. This case applies to those working as in-house counsel. Nothing stops lawyers in private sector from being board members or part time company secretary or indeed run other businesses away from the law firms.

source