Every year, thousands of professionals retire from active service, either upon reaching the statutory retirement age of 65 or after 35 years of pensionable service. These individuals often exit formal employment with a wealth of experience acquired over decades of research, teaching, mentoring, and industry leadership. Their expertise represents a rich and largely untapped resource that does not become stale only by their retirement, especially in the fields of academics, medicine, and other fields.
Upon retirement, professionals typically lose active membership in their regulatory bodies such as the NMA, ASUU, CORBON, and NBA (if without a valid practising certificate). As a result, they are no longer subject to the statutory protections, disciplinary regimes, or professional standards set by governing laws like the Legal Practitioners Act, Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, or sector-specific regulations. Consequently, retired professionals are no longer legally bound by, nor shielded under, these regulatory frameworks.
Active professionals usually carry professional indemnity insurance to protect clients against negligence. However, retired professionals are generally not insured unless they have a run-off policy, leaving any advice they give potentially uncovered. Without insurance, regulatory oversight, or a valid license, the risk to those relying on their advice is significantly increased.
From the foregoing, therefore, it can be deduced that while retirees possess valuable knowledge, there is a dilemma in consulting them for professional advice and services. On the one hand, there is immense benefit in tapping into this repository of expertise, while on the other, the lack of safeguards means advice from retirees carries no institutional guarantee. It is therefore unsafe both legally and practically to rely on retired professionals for expert advice without qualification, insurance, or oversight, regardless of their prior eminence or accomplishments.
It is on this backdrop that this Article addresses the legal consequences and potential liabilities faced by retired professionals who, after ceasing formal practice, continue to offer professional advice. Therefore, the central legal issue addressed herewith is to what extent a retired professional, no longer licensed or affiliated with a professional regulatory body be held liable for the advice or consultation they provide. This issue becomes very critical because of the legal safeguards built around professional practice, particularly concerning accountability, insurance, and recourse in the event of negligence or malpractice.
In Tort, a person who holds themselves out as possessing expertise and who gives advice upon which another reasonably relies may be held liable in negligence or contract, even if retired. The test is not their employment status, but whether a duty of care was owed, that duty was breached, and the breach resulted in damage.
This was famously recognised in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, a landmark English tort law case that established the concept of liability for pure economic loss resulting from negligent misstatement, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. The facts of the case are that a bank provided a reference about a company, which was relied upon by the suing party to their detriment. The court found that a duty of care could exist in such a situation.
This position has been affirmed in Nigerian jurisprudence. Even where no fee is charged, and even in casual or social settings, liability may arise under negligent misstatement, particularly where the recipient acts upon the advice to their detriment. Courts will consider whether it was reasonable for the retiree to allow reliance and whether the advice was presented as authoritative.
In Contract, if a retired professional enters into a consultancy or advisory arrangement, whether formal or informal, and charges a fee, they assume contractual obligations. The standard remains that of a reasonably competent practitioner, and failure to meet that standard may result in liability.
In conclusion, it is trite that while retirement does not legally extinguish a professional's liability, it removes the institutional structures that regulate and support professional accountability. A retired expert may still be held liable in tort or contract, but without licensure or professional affiliation, they and those who rely on them do so at their own risk. Anyone who relies on advice from a retired professional does so with limited recourse and in the absence of institutional safeguards.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
