The Liability Of Retired Professionals When Rendering Professional Consultation – Employee Rights/ Labour Relations

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.