CPD IS GOOD —SO WHY ARE SOME LAWYERS STILL KICKING?

CPD IS GOOD —SO WHY ARE SOME LAWYERS STILL KICKING?

By

Dr. Anne Agi

1. The Manifesto (July 2024)

In 2024, Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN ran for President of the Bar. He campaigned on a robust “Lawyers First/Proactive Bar” manifesto, laying the foundation for mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as central to modern legal practice. From licensing service providers to streamlining training and mandating ICT skills, Osigwe’s vision was clear: upskill the Bar for a future‑ready legal profession. All of this was reported by the various bloggers and we all read them. See The Nigerian lawyer at [Nigeria Lawyer ] and Loyal Nigeria blog at: [Loyal Nigerian]

2. Official Launch: CPD Roadmap Revealed (June 2024)

In late June 2024, as NBA President‑elect, he released a formal CPD roadmap with firm proposals:

- Accreditation and regulation of CPD providers,

- Mandatory CPD hours annually,

- ICT training for digital competency (blog.nigerianbar.org.ng) ICT Training

This marked the launch point in the CPD saga.

3. Rollout & Rising Opposition (2025)

By June 2025, implementation began, and so did lawyer backlash.

Critics argued:

- Once you pay annual practicing fees and get your stamp, no further conditions should apply.

- Mandatory courses are too expensive.

- Free sessions are overcrowded and inaccessible for those who truly need them.

4. Facing pressure, President Osigwe Responded.

He announced reforms on June 29, 2025 to wit:

- CPD remains voluntary: lawyers are free to choose,

- Payments go directly to providers, not via NBA,

- More free sessions across branches,

- NBA tasked to publicize accredited, affordable trainings (blog.nigerianbar.org.ng) [Adjustments Proposed]

5. Anger, Arrogance — and a Cooling-Off?

Despite the clarifications, critics continue to grumble. Some deemed Osigwe’s tone arrogant, feeling his intent was coercive. Yet even after rolling out voluntary, free, branch-level options, dissent remains loud.

This continuous grumbling is amusing. Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, never hid his intention to promote CPD. It was a centrepiece of his campaign: a promise made openly to create a smarter, globally competitive Bar through structured, ongoing learning.  Infact he clearly posted on his X (Twitter) handle stating that a vote for him will GUARANTEE: Setting Up Structures that will aid the Continuing Professional Development of Lawyers [Link here: MAZI AFAM'S MANIFESTO ON X]. 

What he is doing now is not a sudden imposition but simply delivering on the manifesto that earned him the trust and votes of his voters. Seen in this light, I find the constant grumbling by some of the very same people who voted for him as misplaced; time spent complaining could be better served learning something new to improve practice, client service, and ultimately, lawyers’ own bottom line.

ANYWAYS, WHY THE PUSHBACK AND IS IT JUSTIFIED?

🎯 Root Causes of Resistance

Misunderstood intent: Many see CPD as another revenue-generating scheme, especially when providers are private, fees are high, and “free” sessions are always full.

Cultural mindset: The habit of “pay dues, get stamp, practice” remains deeply ingrained.

Distrust in implementation: If the free sessions run out of seats, what's the guarantee official pricing will stay affordable?

💡 COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

United States

Nearly every US jurisdiction requires mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE); none allow practicing fees to replace education credits. Lawyers often budget $300–$1,000/year, with low‑cost or free online webinars offered through bar associations or legal sections. According to CLEreg and state data, 44 out of 50 states enforce CLE rules, with requirements typically ranging from 12 to 15 hours annually. For example, North Carolina mandates 10 general plus 2 ethics hours per year since 1988, and Alaska recently increased its annual requirement to 12 hours . Many states also allow CLE credits for pro bono work, averaging 3 hours credit per year. [American Bar Association] [US CPD]

United Kingdom

In England and Wales, solicitors must record annual CPD hours, which can be met via pro bono work, in-house training, or accredited external events. The Law Society provides free CPD sessions across various topics, ensuring accessibility. There are also CILEx programmes.

Canada 

Mandatory CPD varies by province but they require annual CPD hours, which can be done via free branch‑run events or low‑cost webinars.

British Columbia: requires 12 hours of coursework and 50 hours of self-study annually. [Law Society Of British Columbia]

Alberta: law society requires annual CPD plans and imposes disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance. [The Rules of the Law Society of Alberta]

Ontario: implemented mandatory CPD hours since 2010. [Law Society of Ontario]

Trainings can be done via free branch‑run events or low‑cost webinars. Crucially, financial penalties exist only when lawyers fail to comply, not when they cannot find spots.

Australia

All jurisdictions require annual CPD hours . For example, barristers in NSW, Victoria, ACT, and Tasmania must complete 10 CPD points per year across core areas; recent proposals even add a “equality & wellbeing” category. Free, online CPD, is also widely available from major firms and chambers and can also be done via free branch‑run events or low‑cost webinars.

Here too, financial penalties exist only when lawyers fail to comply, not when they cannot find spots.

📌 Lessons for Nigeria

To ensure the buy-in of all members of the Bar, the NBA is urged to ensure:

1. Transparency in Provision: NBA must regularly publish provider fees and ensure branches schedule sufficient free sessions.

2. Accessible Infrastructure: More online webinars and recorded training archives using easy platforms like zoom and Google Meet would help alleviate issues. Branches could live‑stream sessions.

3. Clarity on Requirements: Emphasize that non‑compliance, not voluntary non‑attendance, may attract disciplinary attention.

4. Incentivize Participation: CPD should be promoted as a business growth tool e.g., offering traction on tech, ethics, ADR, and niche practice areas.

5. Peer‑review Value Proposition: More younger lawyers value skills from modern CPD; uplifting them uplifts the entire Bar.

Conclusion: CPD: A Tool, Not a Trap

Continuing legal education is universally recognized as vital. The NBA’s challenges are not about why CPD, but how it is rolled out. Once concerns over cost, access, and tone are addressed, mandatory CPD, even if voluntary to attend, can become a game-changer: boosting quality, professionalism, and earning potential for lawyers.

At the end of the day: CPD isn’t a levy, it’s a living asset; and those resisting are short-changing their future.