I think ambitious people should treat life in “seasons” rather than trying to balance everything every day.
A few years massively overallocated to work. A period getting seriously fit. A year or two nomading. Then family takes priority for a while. Then maybe at 35 you go completely insane again and spend four years building a new company, and so on.
The mistake is thinking every metric needs to stay green all the time. Most great outcomes (building a company, writing sth serious, training for an event) need uninterrupted runs, not daily moderation. Sometimes work should suffer cause you’re travelling, sometimes your social life should suffer cause you’re building, sometimes career progression should slow cause family matters more. That’s fine.
And tbh it probably makes life more fun too. You get actual chapters and completely different versions of yourself instead of spending 40 years maintaining the same perfectly optimised routine. A few intense years in one city, a weird nomad phase, an obsession that takes over your life, then something completely different. Probably much more memorable than one very long well-optimised Tuesday.
It's why I encourage everyone to think of balance in years, not days. A good life can look horribly unbalanced on some random Tuesday and still be very balanced over 10 years.
If he or she has to quote it, why not? I understand your point and I know that the police system has dropped to a level where they trample on the law they are meant to uphold, but I don't accept the notion that every lawyer must go to the station to massage ego or play acolyte to the police.
There are certain practices I'd never subscribe to as a lawyer. I'd rather quit law and ply my trade elsewhere.
I've had reasons to write a station and request for a formal letter of invitation before a colleague could turn up. He was called on phone and asked to come. I told my colleague that a random phone call from someone who calls himself a police officer doesn't suffice.
My argument was that with the security situation, there's a need for such invitation to be formal and documented. If anything happens, let us be able to show who called him and where he went.
Did the police take it lightly? No. Throughout the process, they kept referring to me as "The lawyer who asked us to write a letter before his client can come" in a very aggressive way.
They wrote the letter. They did not like my gut. I did not like theirs either. I was not there to shop for affection and it would be unduly aspirational of me to desire such warmth from a system that I do not fancy. But they had to do the right thing.
We honoured their invitation and every attempt to intimidate and use subtle force was resisted in line with the law.
I kept telling the colleague I represented that if he gave in to police intimidation, he has failed the people. They'd count it as a win to tell others or another lawyer that: "Even a lawyer came here and we did xyz".
I am generally not welcoming of police briefs, but when I take it, I am not going there to bang my feet or raise my voice. I am also not going there to massage any ego or make a little man great. However, I'd insist that the right things be done.
I do not intend to legislate on how a lawyer should handle police briefs or prescribe the standard, but I hate that we often see lawyers who insist that police should do the right thing as inexperienced.
If we uphold the notion and sell it as the norm, it is a indictment on us and a matter of serious concern for non-lawyers.
Again, I am not saying that a "be a monkey to catch a monkey" approach to police practice is bad, for lawyers who opt for it. I am only saying that holding it up as the standard is, with due respect, an indictment on us as lawyers.
Distinguished Colleagues,
For far too many members of this Association, the annual payment of the Bar Practising Fee has been an exercise in institutional obligation without a corresponding experience of institutional value. The question that too many lawyers ask but rarely say aloud is: what, precisely, does my BPF get me?
Under an LOA presidency, that question has twelve specific answers.
One: Free digital stamp and seal for all members on payment of the BPF, with permanent migration to a secure digital imprint stamp that eliminates the logistical failures of the current physical distribution system.
Two: Free access to Law Pavilion, the New Weekly Law Reports, and electronic law reports for all lawyers of zero to ten years at the Bar, removing a significant recurring cost of practice from the members who can least absorb it.
Three: Reactivation of the N1.5 billion single-digit interest rate loan scheme, with improved accessibility, clearer eligibility criteria, and an Islamic finance option for members who require non-interest arrangements.
Four: Increase in the NBA life insurance payout from N2 million to N4 million in the event of death or complete incapacitation, with corresponding upward reviews for terminal illness and partial incapacitation.
Five: Free qualitative training through the NBA-ICLE, with at least seven CPD hours available free to young lawyers every month.
Six: A comprehensive NBA member application, NBA One, modelled on the International Bar Association's member platform, through which every member can interface with the Secretariat and conduct all NBA activities.
Seven: Free NBA Journal for all financial members on payment of the BPF.
Eight: A health insurance scheme open to all members, with twenty members per branch covered at no cost each year and a minimum additional health fund investment of N20 million.
Nine: Free Annual General Conference attendance for members who are seventy years and above, excluding Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
Ten: A twenty per cent reduction in conference fees for young lawyers.
Eleven: A national mentorship scheme for young lawyers, structured across three tracks: one-to-one mentorship pairing, group and speed mentorship, and the Law Firm Mentorship Initiative providing institutional guidance between established firms and start-up practices.
Twelve: Five per cent of the NBA's annual income set aside for career development, scholarships, and sponsorships specifically targeting young lawyers.
Each of these commitments is drawn directly from the published LOA manifesto. Each has a delivery mechanism. Each has a funding basis. None of them are new ideas that appeared only in election season. They are the coherent welfare programme of a candidate who understands what NBA membership should feel like.
Membership in the NBA should not feel like a tax. Under LOA, it will feel like belonging to an institution that is genuinely working for you.
Vote LOA. 18 July 2026.
@alapo_ How about leaving women to advise themselves? We can never see from their perspective because we can never go through their experience and they can never see through men's perspective because they will never go through our experience too. Our reality is different
If your husband can fill 12.5kg cooking gas.,buy crates of eggs... subscribe cable TV, buy data and fuel generator in this present condition of Nigeria...
Madam please give that man some REAL PEACE OF MIND.
Our New Whatsapp Number is Live!
Here are things you should know:
✅ The new # 09040002900 (🔖 Save It)
✅ We will never ask you to provide your card details and PIN, Token Code, Internet Banking Password, Email Password by Dm, Email, Text, or Phone call.
#GTCOCares