judicial whetherguarantee ofthe andT'air much actionis 62

content,
reasons, "naturalwhere of isand where principles
justicenatural import"natural Consequently,
capriciously.
fairexpress are administrative
every arrive
of The justice
7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1, fairness still fair natural
Jain A.I.R.Delhi D.K.Ltd.,State
QB. ARaistant Jain," The play required reAsonable. right play
PrinciplesManeka
633. concept At in
otherwise more. none the wider power play or at are
absence
andjustice" justice. justice" of
terms thepresent inthe
andTransport
1991
Yudav
(1993) of doctrine of quasi-judicial a of of an
GandhiJain,Bacise W.B. may if action." justice. the part
of to "natural
There doctrine of
natural However, or just equality
of action
purview essantial LEGAL
S.C. v. 3, than of should tothe inquiryaction
Administrativo V.
arrive of dilute the The are fairness fairness the person The
Principlos LMA.S.C.C.
Anwar contract be decision of
Corporution is of administrative requires Articlo ETHICS,
bias,natural
Comnmissioner
v. 101.
principles
is justice However, Courts The
Union
Industries 267. Ali
a justice"
the a
fairness of that usedexercised
doctrine the and isassuredaffected mnanner inbuilt
of
at
flexible be
authorities requires ACCOUNTABILITY
right danger fairness inter of in judiial, Article
Law, India,
Administrative
of of
v. Suru,
findings, justicerules as of doctrine exercised action. and,
judicial principles
give that 14
v.D.TC. Lsd, is
also of well. of statutory justly the th e by of
to
concept, changeably." would and of
p. Issac A.J.R. know thatvague provides
of the fairness concept and therefore, fairness much
Article exercise the 14 natural
natural
146. A.lR. Peter,Majdoor(1993) on would natural has In of quasi-iudicial
Itare or
procedure
therefore as OF
1952 the and naturaladdition fairness judicial
and quasi-judicial
is emphasis of
be LAWYERS
1978 I.aw, the the some nature. reasonablyrequired natural
14. in of justiceany
3 yet universal now
(1994)
8.C.C. 8.C. basisother have justiceflexible, certainrequires justice. of fairly in
S.C. page Congress, justice fairness The both conformity the rule rule
75; it weakness. cannot or well action &
398, 4 267. to conceptthe on adopted BENCH-BAR
the
3.C.C,
146. D.K . of does been even
party's the quasijudicial
idea The and to th e or justice power of of
Ridge 1991 records adoption thprocedural
e is Fairness the is of term
established observeinquiry
andadministrative. of the
principle8
YadaU embody
applicable. principles benotadministrative the procedure
104. Supp. inappliçable.observance
concept
According a with andmust
v. case, natural
term invoked not artehe substantive RELATTOY
Baldwin, v. those "fairness" arbitrarily both
administration the its
(1) LM.A, etc. of includes the
duty a power rule part impactonbe
8.C.C. situations the safeguards of of having justice
arbitrarily. intend of principles just, comes as of
Industries minimal Though fairness to natural to principle fairness. of natural
(1963) to notion of
Jain alter
and and bot h that and he Taut law.
600 give the the the is to
1 :

country, necessarily
influenco
unworthy allowing of observedhas :the general
therulesbecomes
determineethics himself,
unwritten 1.
1. the
highest of and friendlylegal of Meaning,
Professional
Quotod Tho spirit
discharge co-operation
of 3. Professional
Ethlcs 2. I.
thus, Code the rules Punlshment Meaning,
it
American professional
Theprofession an legal hi s
inmotive, of tothe counscl of dignity the for Duties
Other 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
C.L. thoso of
brotherhood standards relation advocate of client, Duty Duty Duty Duty ETHICS
depends be profossional
keystone legal their fundamental lawprofession regulatingNature
Anand, incroasing
sooner between of ethics to to to toNature
who Bar with is but his for
responsibilities
ethics. the between ethics his opponent the the
colleague
General upon to
of breach
are Association of his his adversary may OF
the and
justico, Law naintain relation means cllentcourt and
or in the conduct
thlater
e
controlled for th e It client aim conduct of
the the the be SYNOPSIS Need CHAPTER IV
Principles
maintenanco subject arch has Profession,
Bench of
behaviour Need
the
LEGAL
to with defined
63)( the Committee opponent
ybserved
Bar
cstablish
to Legal Bench tho Bar. as of in
of body
of arch by
Government. to titself,
he and dignity advocate men the law
The
Legul
must
craft, the community
and the
Ethics
to
and SS-82012
SANDHU
RS-30
members ofand of as
in the a a
PROFESSION
Clhics, of that has honourable and main
Bar. ofgeneral Odo2.
securo
thcorroding
e groed Bar is is towards practising code
witnesses; to the rulos
Shrino fall. the well toChief governed
objoct of
p. of
If socure in
maintaina logal
63.
The and explainedgonorally."
legal
it bar.
is and conduct
and the
and spirit Justice governed the
of gain is of When lawyer
future
demoralising weakened
profossion thatpromotionto profession by practice
Justice the Court.
establish fair ofthe the written
or thlawyerH
e dealingsfriendly Marshall ethics atowards
of honour spocial person bywhich
pure other need Thus,
the byis and the
a of of or
 IEGAL ETHICS ACCOUNTARIL ITY O LAWYERS A ACNCHAAR RELATNON
64

any onn taking to ptnrtieo nt the Par shsd heg A trreet wed
nd unrulled by the advocates and it cannot be so mAintoined. unlens the
conduct and motive
of the members of the logal profession ore whnt thoy of privilegen ns well as of tha ethieal otlignfinna f he mermhre t
lhiod Lo bo. It, therefore, becomes the plain and nimple duty of tho profension. lle ahould ha shle to distinguih hetwei rigt n4 rng t
Lanrvers to use their influenco in every logitimate wny to help nnd mokr maltors of profaanionnl condurt withost AifMesy or hoitetin Tha
a h a t it ought to be. A Codo of ethicCs is one method of fiurthernnen necesAnry fnr the 4ntinfnrtion of his rwn trunadenca, r the hnsear snf
of this end. The Committee has furthor obsorved that members of the good namo of the profesaion, fur the prtartin f tha ehent sn4 he
hor like judges, are oflicors of the Court and like judgos they ahould hold concerned in litigntinn and for tha welfara nf the geal pubtie It
lawjry
ie only during good behaviour "pod behaviour" ahould not bo n vague duty of tho Btato to protect personn not only fromn inenmpert
prdoei!
ovn It should be defined and moasured by auch ethienl atandnrda, but also from thone wh9 will disrdgard the nhtigstinns f
however high. a8 aro necossary to keep the administration of justice, pure Rorvice
trse thst
and ungullied. Such standards may be crystallized into a written code of Bir 8ivnnwnny ha# rightly observod hat it in f enursa
ertureg m thi tt
nfogsional ethics and lawyer failing to conform thercto ahould not be men nre not neceAgarily rnade morai by corsen d ar4 ten
ermitted to practise or rotain membership in professional organisntion. it must be ronombered thnt lopsos fron the traditimal tandnrd lirle
In a case,' the Suprene Court has obaerved that an advocate in due to fgnoronce and that a diffunion of knwiedye of the ruln tardard
smder an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that tho public fs high
lw the profession# nust contribute to the mainten an prodosn
iustice system is enabled to function at its full potential. An advocate of integrity' The observation of the canons of legal wll, n
abould be dignified in his dealings to the court, to his fellow lawyors and doubt, raise the profesaion in the public estimatin
the litigants. He should faithfully ab1de by the standards of profossional Logal profunsion is not o businesa but a prdeaior t has teen
onnduct and etiquette preseribed by the Bar Council of India in Chapter croated by tho stats for the public gos Cunsrpentiy, the vesets d tha
II. Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules profession lies in the throe thing of tha
Stating the need for a Code of conduct for lawyers Justice Sundaram (1) organination of ita membars fur the pertmat
Aiyar has said: function,
and thiat, r
Rules are nccessary even for the best self-interest is a misloading (2) maintenance of certain standards, itelLsetual
foctor when you have to decide on the spur of the moment what is bost tho dignity of the profesgion, ond efficient srvies
to be done in the circumstances. The fact that these are definite rules (3) 8ubordination f yecuniary yains o
and that much discretion is given to the individual will itself be an The codification of ths canons of thowhila prfonsimal ethies may re
additional source of temptation. Never adopt the standards of a business that the code in exhaustivg n reahty it eROTt t
improssion Aiysr, 1d N
profession. But after all whatever light we may scek to get from rules of oxhaustive. It has been rightly stated ty P iamunatha
formulate a ne of eyai
conduct which have been prescribed in Englond or other countries, a great Ranganatha Aiyer that it is not possible ato specific rule o be lllud
ethics which will provide the lawyer with
deal will have to be left to individual conscience. Nothing but a his professionsl lile. He has msde t e ny
cdosr
determination to err always on the safe side in cases of doubt will onable in all the varicd relationy of that these caons of an thial
a8wumed in
you to do your duty consciously. In this country it must be confessed that that it must not bo
the Bubject r to lay dw
very often petitioners are guilty of questionable conduct owing o atternpt whalwver can be made to exhaust all purposes and under ]
conduct which will be sufficient for
ignorance. They do not really know what is proper to be done in any rulos of
realised by the Bar Coureil f
particular case and as there are no rules to guide there, no Bettled sets of circumstances." This fact has been wtandards f profeivsa! condue
traditions to serve as an inspiration, each one is a law unto himself. He India. The preamble to the rules as to
and etiquette made by the Bar Councilconduct of India has made it clear hat
has further observed that it is not desirable that the lawyer's guidance and etiquette uptod 8
should be altogether under the judicial control. It would be impossible for the rules so made contain canons of not be cotatrd as
Judges to control the bar satisfactorily. Too trict a discipline on the part generul guídes and the specific mention thereof hallthough hst specificaity
a denial of the oxistenco pf other equally imperative
of the Courts is likely to unfair the independence and self-reliance of the mentioned role in the adrninistration of justice. The lawyers and dzes
members of the bar. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that there are considered the protector of justice. Because of such an ínportant roie
should bo disciplinary bodies and that the profession itself should try and by thern to lessgn tbe people's lath
legal ethics
frame rules for its guidance. Explaining the advantages of the functionary of the lawyers nothbing should be dope Bhics, p. 69.
1, CL. Anand, Ceneral Pruples of Lagul
learned C.L. Anand has stated that advocate being a public 2. See Aiyer, Professionul ELthics, Pureward.
3. C.I. Anand, General Principles of Leyal ELbic, p 30
1, 0.P Sharma v. llgh Court of Punjab & Haryunu, AIR 2011 SC 2101. 4. Legal Ethics,p 14.
2. Justice Sundaram Aiyar, Professional Elhics. 5. 1bid.
3. Ibud.
 LEGAL ETHICS, ACOOUNTABILITY OF LAWYERS &BENCH-BAR RELATION
66
ETHICS OF LEGAL PROFESSION
in the honesty and intogrity of the legal profession. Initially a written Section l4. Procedure when charge of unprofossionul conduct
code of conduct did not find favour in England but later on the General is brought in subordinate Court or revenue ofice.If any muh
Council of the Bar published a Book cnntaining a complete code for the pleador or mukhtar practising in any subordinate Court or in any rovenur
guidance of the lawyers. In India the exhaustive code of conduct for office is charged in such Court or office with taking instructions except
lawyers has been provided by. the Bar Council of India in the exorcise of as aforosaid or with any such misconduet as aforesAid, the presiding officer
its rule-making power under Seotion 49(1Xc) of the Advocates Act, 1961. shall send him a copy of the chargo and also a notice that on a day to
EveD' prior to the Advocates Act, 1961, the provision for punishmont bo therein appointed, such chargo will be taken in to consideration. 8uch
for misconduct is found. Section 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 copy and notice shall be 8ervad upon the pleader or mukhtar at least
contained provision for the punishment for misconduct. Section 10 of the fiftoon days before the day sO appointed.
Indian Bar Council Act, 1926, contained the following provision8- On such day or on any subsequent day to which the enquiry may
(1) The High Court may, in the manner hereinafter provided,
be adjourned the presiding officer shall receive and record all evidence
reprimand, suspend or remove from practice any Advocate of the proporly producod in support of the charge or by the pleader or mukhta
High Court whom it finds guilty of professional or other misconduct. and shall proceed to adjudicato on the charge. If such officor finds the
(2) Upon receipt of a complaint made to it by any Court or by
the Bar Council or by any other person that.any such adyocate has
charge established and considors that the plender or mukhtar should be
susponded or dismissed in conscquence, ho shall record his finding and
been guilty of misconduct, the High Court shall, if it does not the grounds thereof and shall report the same to the High Courts and
summarily reject the complaint, refer the case for inquiry either to the High Court may acquit, suspend or dismiss tho pleader or mukhtar.
the Bar Council or after consultation with the Bar Council to the
Suspension pending investigation,-Any District Judge or with
Court of a District Judge (hereinafter referred to as a District Court) his sanction any Judge subordinate to him, any Judge of a Court of Smal
and may of its own motion refer any care in which it has otherwise Causes of a Presidency Town, any District Magistrate or with his sanction
reason to believe that any such Advocate has been so guilty." any Magistrate subordinate to him and any revenue authority not inferior
Besides this Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 also contained provisions io a Collector or with the Collector's sanction any Revenuo Oficer
for punishing the advocates for misconduct. The provisions of this Act subordinate to him may, ponding the investigation and the order of the
were as follows-
High Court, suspend from practice any pleader or mukhtar chargod be•ore
Section 13. Suspension and dismissal of pleaders and him or it under this section.
Mukhtars guilty of unprofessional conduct.-The High Court may Every report made to the High Court under the section shalu,
also, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, suspend or dismiss any pleader (a) when made by any Civil Judgo subordinate to the District Judge
or Mukhtar holding a certificate as aforesaid be made through such Judge;
(a) who takes instructions in any case except from the party on (b) when made by a Magistrato subordinate to the Magistrate of the
whose behalf he is retained or some person who is the District, be made through the Magistrate of the District and the
recognised agent of such party within the meaning of the Code Sessions Judge;
of Civil Procedure or some servant, relative or friend authorised (e) whon mado by the Magistrate of the District, be mado through
by the party to give such instruction8, or the Sessions Judgo;
(b) who is guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the (d) when mado by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Chief
discharge of his professional duty; or Controlling Rovenuo authority, be made through such Revenue
(c) who tenders, gives or consents to the retention, out of any fee authorities as tho Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may from
paid or payable to him for his service or any gratificatioD for time to time, direct.
preserving or having procured the employment in any legal Every such roport shall bo accompaniod by the opinion ot ouch Julgo,
business of himsel or any other pleader or mukhtar; Magistrate or Revenue authority through whom or which it is made.
(d) who, directly or indirectly, procures or attempts to procure the Section 15. Powor tocall for record in case of acquittal under
employment of himself as such pleader or mukhtar, through or Section 14.-The High Court, in any case in which a pleader or mukhtar
by, the intervention of, any person to whom any remuneration has beon acquitted under Section 14 otherwise than by an order ot the
for-obtaining such employment has bren given by him or agreed High Court, may call for the record and pass such order thereon as it
or promised to be 80 given, or
thinke fit.
(e) who accepts any employment in aFy legal business through a Boforo the written Codo of conduct thoro woro canons of ethies for
person who has been proclaimed as a tout under Soction 36, or
() for any other lawyers but they wore not oxhaustive. "There was much uncvrtainty as to
reasonable cause. the conduct amounting to the professional miseconduct. Otea the lawvers
 ETHICS OF LEGAL PROFESSN

LEGAL ETHIS ACCOUNTAAUTY OF LAWYERS& BEMOHa4R RELATRON is requiTed to mairtain tomrds tee
2. An advocate bearing in mind thet
respectful attitudeessential for the survival fthea
committed professional misonduct on account of ignorance as to
conduct amounting to the professional mi80onduct. To remove out this
e judicial office is
This rule makes it
clear that the lomering
digye
free
uncertainty a written code of conduct was considered necessary. Section wi be a serious danger to the surrir
491 Xc) of the Advocates Act empowers the Bar Council of India to frame judicial office
community.
rules prescribing the standards of professional conduct and etiquette. ln made it cdear that no advocate shall
the exercise of this power the Bar Council of India has ramed the rules 3. The rule has Court by any illegal
as to the professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the decision of the
prohibits the private communication th a ige resg
advocates Sections 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act makes provision in if an advocate attemp. to
relation to punishment for professional or other misconduct. pending case. Consequently,any Wegal
2. Professional Ethics the decision of a court by misconductor improper mang
amount to the professional
Section 491Xc) of the Advocates Act, 1961, empowers the Bar Council advocate to use his best efon ta
of India to make rules so as to prescribe the standards of professional 4. The rule requires the resorting io sharp
conduct and etiquette to be observed by the advocates. It has been made and prevent his cient fram
clear that such rules shall have effect only when they are approved by or from doing anything in relation to the Court, pps
the Chief Justice of India It has also been made clear that any rules or parties which the acvocate hmsett ougnt DOt to da t
the cha
made in relation to the standards of professional conduct and etiquette requires the advocate to refuse to represen:
to be observed by the advocates and in force before the commencement persists in such improper conduct The rde makes it dezr
of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973, shall continue in force, until the advocate shall not consider himseii mere mouthriee f
altered or repealed or amended in accordance with the provisions of this client and shall exercise his own judgrnent in he se
Act. restrained language in correspOndence, avadting scurrle
In the exercise of the rule-making power under Section 49(1Xc) of attacks in pleadings and using intemperate languare
the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India has made several rules arguments in the Court.
so as to prescribe the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to 6. An advocate shall appear in Cout at al times aiy in
be observed by the advocates. Chapter II of Part VI of the Rules framed prescribed dress and his appearaAnce shaii always be gresetabie
by the Bar Council of India deals with the standards of professional 6. An advocate shall not enter appeaTance, act, piead r prase
conduct and etiquette. It contains several Rules whicà lay down the in any way before a Court, Tribunal or authority mninei in
standards of professional conduct and etiquette. These Rules specify the section 30 of the AdvOcates Act, if the sale ar any memòer
duties of an advocate to the Court, client, opponent and colleagues, etc. thereof is related to the advocate as father, grand-father, son
However from the Preamble it becomes elear that these rules contain grand-son, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband
canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides and the specifñic mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law, mother-in-izR,
mention thereof should not be construed as a denial of the existence of son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law or sister-in lau, Far
other equally imperative, though not specifically mentioned. this purpose of this rule, Court shall mean a Court, Bench
The Rules mentioned in Chapter II of Part VI of the Rules of the Tribunal in which abovementioned relation of the advocate is a
Bar Council of India may be discussed as follows Judge, Member or the Presiding Oficer.
1. Duty to the Court The provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act are as
The Bar Council of India has made certain rules so as to prescribe follows
duties of an advocate to the Court. Such duties may be explained as Subject to the provisions of the Advocates Act erery
follows advocate whose name is entered in the State rol shal be
1. During the presentation of the case and while acting otherwise entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to
before the Court an advocate is required to conduct himself with which this Act extends
dignity and self-respect. An advocate shall not be servile and in (1) in al courts incuding the Supreme Court;
case of proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take
officer, it is his right and duty to submit his grievance to the evidence; and
proper authoritis. The rule empowers the advocate to make (ii) before any other authority or person before whom such
complaint against a judicial officer but it should be submitted advocate is by or under any law for the time being in foree
to the proper authorities. entitled to practice.
 nublie tave other than in (urt otyt h wtial

(ot mn Mreete

Any (Hut or bunal or AnY other nuthorit Rr o Aainst n

organisation or an institutin, sfety yntim, it ho in A atataitwnts t thote and alutd ot fwiat h ota tla ahnd t tg
member of the eeentive mmittee of eh Aniantton 0
ingtitution o iety er 7atiM. "Exeutie (onmittep", lhy
whateve name it may be mllet, shall elude AIy mmitto
or body of ersn which. for the time being, is osted with tho ia tho duty of the advveate to n4nist tho Cet tn ths adninitratis+
general thanagument of the affaiN of he ogeniantion
institution or soviety o oratim lowever it haa boen made atatuts
dear that this ule ahall not apply to wuch a member aDpearing
as "amicW8 crtae witheut a fo on behaltof a Bar Counetl, nud courtey to tho (nrt fr the roaens tated hle*
Ineurparated Law Socdetr or n Bar AReiation. (n) An ndroeate A lilo the tdge, himapl nn eet nf t ( t
9. An advocate shall not act or plead in any matter iu which he Ad an integral t t of the felietal mnehine l'h logs heteisn
coneista of tho lur a# woll 4 the Roeh And oth he m
it himself pecuniarily interested For example,himeelf
an advovate
ia alev
should not act in a bankruptcy petition when he Hima And idoals.
a creditor of the bankrupt. (o n theory it is the king or Sovereign whe preedee m t (et
Rules 1 and 2 (stated above) make it clear that an advocate ahould of justice and the Judsv i morelr the tmouthpie
presen the case of his client beforo the Cout fearlessly He ahall not bo representative of he Sovvreign Resert ahn tr the ' t i
therefoe, tespect shown tu the Sovereign whua rotrentatv
servile and in case there is proper ground tofor eubmit
conplaint againet a judicial
his grievance to tUhe tlhe Judgv is
officer, it is not only his right but duty
propar authorities. However, the rule has also nmade it clear that he thust (e) Not only itigants And witueeses but tho gvneral uhlie wll
be rospectful to tho Court. Ho must maintain the dignity of the legal their insyirations trom the erample of advwates It i meoear
profesion as well As the dignity of the Court. He is att officer of the for the aduinistration of jeetice that Jutys ahoud have stom
Court and required to uphold the dignity and decorun of the Court and of the pevple. r judgus A ot nstet it tund ts hmpar
not to do anything to bring the Court itself to disrepute. In a case' a public ontidence in the administratron of justee
lawyer imputed particularly and unfairness against the Munaiff and said (d) (t is the gud munners and ntvweates betiore anytihng eise ar
that the MunaiT did not follow principles in his order. The lawyer was "gentlemen o' the Bar"
held liable for professional misconduct. (e) Even from a purely practieal stad1oint, there is nethna tu te
Rules 3 and 4 (stated above) aro also of nuch importance in the lair guiued but therv is mueh to lose by antagunsng e (rt.
administration of justice. These rulos roquire an advocate uot to influence Contlict with the Judge renders the trial disagroable to ai! and
the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means und use his has generlly an injurieus etlect upen the intarests of the cient
best cfforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to shurp or (n The usual pratiev in uvdern imes 18 tu ant Juhg tn
unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing among the members of the lar and even where thia ruie ia tot
cuunsol or parties which the advocate himself ought not to do. These rules strictly observed the Bench is faitly rereseutatve f the Rar
prohibit private communication with Judge relating to a pending case. An (g) lt is hecessary tor dignitiet and hecurable admunistratea
attempt to influenco the docision of a Court by improper or illegal moans justice that the Cuurt should be rurdet wth oert br the
nnd private communication with the Judgo relating to a case are taken euitors und pevple.
not only professional misconduct but also contempt of Court." Thus, if an lu lis third Resolution llotnan has stated'
advocate stoops to bribe a Judge to get an order in favour of his cliout "b all Judges, when in Court, l will erer e reetfi thev
1. Lalit Mohan v. Adocate-General, AIR 1957 SC 260
2. Rirvan-ul-HasNan V. Sate uf U.E, AIR 1933 SC 185
3. In tho matler of U, an cdweute. AIR 1936 Rang 178; Chandru Shekhr Soni v Bur
Council. AIR 1983 8C 1012.
 ETHICS OF LEOAL PROFESSION

in thin behalf Such a judgment may he

LEGAL EHICS, ACCOUNTARILIIY OF LAWVERS & BENCHAN RET ATION
ronnoning udoptedl
nro the lnw's vieerogenta, And whntover my bo thoir charaetor and
department, the individual ahonld be lont in the najority of tho
the prlnciplo of
naturnl juatice.
the ollont
vilntiva
offico. 2. Duly to the dutles of An
Rules 11 to 33 deal with follows uclvocate to
Rosolution Forty one of HofMuan i also notablo, In thin Roaolutlon
ho has stated' Thouo rulos may be
oxplained an his clien
that an Advocata in bound to
(1) Rulo 1l provides Tribunal
"In roading to the Court or to tho jury, authorition, rocorda,
documenta or othor papers, I nhall alwayn connidor myself n8 in tho Court or or befora Any pthor accapt any briet
exoCuting n Lrusta and as Auch. bo1und to oxocuto it faithfiully and
honourahly I am rOsolvod, thoroforo, cAvefully to nbatnin from all
boforo whlch he proponen to practise nt foe
ntanding at Bar and also tha naturo of the onRe. The
nutstlehntoritywithin ia
conHi
fnlo or decoptiona rondinga and from all uncandld omiaslon of any It cloar that in pegial cireumatancos he may rafung rule makn
qualification of the doctrines maintainod by mo, whlch mny bo n partloular briof. In the cAne of S.J. Chaudhary v.
contained in the toxt or in the noten: and I ahall ovor hold that tho
Supromo Court has mado it clenr that if an
obligntion axtenda not only to worda, AyllnbloA And lottors but alno
to the modua legendi" tho brlof of a uriminal cano, ho must attend tha advocnta
In the cAse of D. C. Saxena the Supromo Court,
has mado it cloar
day and if he doon not do Mo (.o., i he falla to attendca#n day t
that tho counnel or party apponring boforo the Court nhould not indulgo ho will be hold linblo for breach of profauwlonal duty
in writing in pleadinga, the (2) Rulo 12 providon that an advocute ahall not
the judge or Court. lHo should8Currilou8 nllogations or scandalisatlon ngainst
maintain dignity and docorum from ongagomonta onco nccoptad without wufficiant withdraworddinarily
If the roputation or dignity of tho of tho Court.
Judgo who docidos tho cano aro allowod unloss roanonoblo and Bufficient notico is givon to cauae and
to be preacribed in the
plondings tho respect for the Court would quickly caso ho withdraws himsolf from tho CHao, he ia tha client In
disappear and independenco of tho
In U.P Sales Tax Service judiciary v.would bo a thing of tho pust.
uch part of tho foa nn has not been onrngd. bound rofud
the Supremo Court haw Association Taxation Bur Ausociation (3) Rulo 13 makos it cloar that an advocata ahould
Court with firoarns, his made it cloar that if an
conduct will not bo conBistent advogate attonds tho brlef or uppoar in a cAso in which ho han not nocapt a
raanon to believa
of the legal profoswion und with the dignity ho will bo a witnose. Tho rulon thal
it should be
doprocatwd. In this caae an ongagod in a cu8O it bocomeu apparent provides that if, aftor hmin
advocate, instoad of arming himsulf that ha in a witnes
armed with licenaed revolver and was with armoury of precodents, was a material quostlon of fact, ho
whould not
fire-arm. Ho pretended to provido himsolf attwnding the Courts with llcønsod An advocato in çAne ho can continua to appear a1
solf-defence. The Court observed with tho revolvor to shoot In oliont'y intorosta. retiro without jeopsrdis1ng s
"it is regrottablo that
Court with firearms, it is not befitting to tho advocates attond In a casc? tho M.P. High Court has
profession and is n distressing featuro." dignity of the legal Council of Indin Rulos are not hald that the Har
In Smt. Poonam v. Sumit comploto code with rospect to
in case, the Tanwar, the Suprone Court has held that tho highor standard of
profossional ethics oxpected of a lawyrt,
the court maycounsel
for the party is what may still bo proper
decline to entertain thenot able t render any asnistanco a counsol, Tho
for others may still be improper or
raise the iBsues in his petition. Tho counsel eXpoctation is of high ethical
on those pointers on petition and leave it to tho court to give cannot jut
its docision lawyor who 1u a priviloged member behavour frum a
thereof. In abaence of going through the record and of the
Oxpocted to bo a gentloman. The Court has heldcommumty and
proper to the courtdøtermining correctnoNH
is no obligation on
the part ofassistance
the
by the
to docide the caso lawyers, there
proper for an Advocato to that it is not
reason that unless the lawyer court for the simplo ho is being examined as continue as counsel of plaintilf oncge
court is not able to renders proper plaintiff. He must volunteerwitnows in the caso on buhalf of be
the controversy. decide iftlie case. It is not forassistanco to the
the court itself court, tho to rotiro in the caso 9nco
judgnent given nay Besides, the
be violativejudgment is decided in such to decide beon citod as n witnouB. An
advocato cannot idontily himei
he hhl
opposite counsel would not have of principlos of natural justicecasesa# the the with the client and
fair opportunity to with the caso aftor thereforo it is not
being examinod usproper
for him to continus
1, 1bid.. answer the line of In Kokhanda B. Poondacha v. KD a witnosA.
2. In re Rewolution XLL.
Ganpathi, the advocate
party to procsoding8 Cannot city Court
DC. 8Axena, AIR
3. AIR 1996 8C 1996 SC 2481. held that ong has
98.
4. AIR 2010 80
1384 reprosenting the other sido as witness
without
1,
how his testimony is
AIR 1984 3C 1756. reluvant as it will result indisclosing
depriving
2. Rajendra
2011 Nagrath
3. AIR v. L. Vohra, AIR 2009 MP 131
8C 1363
 PAOFE9SIONW
ETHIC9 OF LEGN
AELATION time, he n
LEGAL ETHICS, ACCOUNTABILITY OF LAWYERS &BENCH BAR ahall not, at any
74 provides that an advocate
(8) Rule 18
othor sido of servicos of the advocato. of litigation.
party to fomenting cleAr an advocnte not
commoncement it that it is the duty of his client
(4) Rule 14 provides that An advocate shall, at thethereof, malte all (9) Rulo 19 makesinstructiong of any person other than
of his engagement and during the continuance act on the advocate shall not
to It provides that an
such full and frank disclosure to his client relating to his or his authorised
agent.
other than his client
or
connection with the parties and any interost in or about the on the instructiong of any per3on
act
controversy as are ikely to affect his client's judgments in either hie authorised agont. of the sut
depending upon the successcontract
engaging him or ontinuing the engagement. fee of an advocate A for
to uphold
(6) Rule 15 providos that it is the duty of an advocate honourable
(10) The opposed to the public policy Contract
is considered as Section 23 of the Indian
the interests of his client fearlessly by all fair and contingernt fee is also hit by proceeds of the litigation may
means without regard to any unpleasant consequence to himself Act. Agreement to share the the advocate has
direct
or any other. It is the duty of an advocate to defend a
peraon
amount to champerty. In such conditions with the sense of
accused of a crime rogardless of his personal opinion as to the in the subject-matter and cannot act agreement
guilt of the accused and in the discharge of this tHuty he should
interest of objectivity. Such such an
detachment or with the attitudeprofession. To provent
always bear in mind that his loyalty is to the law which degrades the honourable that an advocate shall not stipulate
requires that no man should be convicted without adequate agreement rule 20 provides or agree to share
the results of litigation
evidence. for a fee contingent on
(6) Rule 16 provides that an advocate appearing for the prosecution the proceeds thereof. not buy or traffic in
or
of a criminal trial shall so conduct the prosecution that it does that an advocate shall any
(11) Rule 21 provides receive any share or interest in
not lead to conviction of the innocent. The rule malkes it clear stipulate for or agree to clear that nothing
that the suppression of material capable of establishing the actionable claim. However, it has been made debentures or
and
to stock, shares which are, for the
innocence of the accused must be serupulously avoided. in this Rule shall apply
any instruments
(7) Rule 17 provides that an advocate shall not commit (directly or government securities or o negotiable or to any
mercantile
indirectly) a breach of the obligations imposed by Section 126 or custom
time being, by law
of the Indian Evidence Act. This section provides in relation to document of title to goods. not, dirsctly or
the professional communications. According to this section no Rule 22 provides that an advocate shall name or in any
(12) either in his own
barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be indirectly, bid for or purchase
or for the benefit of
any other
permitted, unless with his cient's express consent, to disclose any his own benefit
other name, for a decrce or other
communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of in the execution of
person, any property sold any way professionally engaged.
his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by
condition proceeding in which he was in this prohibition does not prevent
or on behalf of his client or to state the contents or The rule makes it clear
that
his client any
of any document with which he has become acquainted in to
the for or purchasing for
employment or an advocate from bidding may himself legally bid for or
course and for the purpose of his professional property which his client authorised in
disclose any advice given by him to his cliernt in the course
and advocate is expressly
purchase, provided the
for the purpose of such employment : writing in this behalf. fee payahle
Provided that nothing in this section shail protect from an advocate shall not adjust
(13) Rule 23 provides that against liability to the
his own personal
disclosure to him by his client not arise in the course of his
illegal
(1) any such comhunication made in furtherance of any client which liability does
employment as an advocate. anything
an advocate shall not do reposed
purpose,
(2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or
showing (14) Rule 24 provides that advantage of the confidence
vakil, in the course of his employment as such whereby he abuses or takes
that any crime or fraud bas been committed since the in him by his client. the
advocato should keep accounts of
commencement of his employment. (15) Rule 25 provides that an him and the accounts should show
It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, client's monoy entrusted to his behalf, the
pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact from the client or on
the amounts recoived and the debits made on account ot
by or on behalf of his client. The explanation to Soction 126 expenso8 incurred for him necossary particulars
makes it clear that the obligation stated in this Bection and all othor
foes with respective dates
continues after the employment has ceasod.
 ETHICS Of LEGAL PrROFESsICN

Inatter or has
plendinge or acted for a
drawn
plead for the
opposite party
76 LEGAL E THKCS ACOATARY Oi4EAS AAEM

(16) Acording to Rulo 26 whore monera Are

RAR RLATION

ceived hom In a
act, appear
cnse' the
or
Supreme Court
lawyers will not
has
held that the
defend certain accuned
party. hall
ghould contaln that
tcOunt of a client, the entriOs in the ncconts
have been received Tor Bar As80ciation
against the orofessional ethics and
a roference ns to whether the Amounts to be
held and statute. Professional ethics, ag
of the proceeding8, no a briefhas
been
ees or expenses and during the ourse
advocato shall, excopt with the congent in writing of Lhe
constitution
that a lawyer
cannot refuse been
proviled
Court, requires his feo and lawyer is not otherwise
engaththeatged. the Thunelient,
the expenses
concerned. be at liberty to divert any portion of willing to pay Bar AsSociation in passing a resolution
towards fees.
(17) Rule 27 providos that whore any amount is received or
given action of the appear for a particular accused, whether on
must be mombers will ground that he is a me f a
policeman or on the all norm of the Augpected
constitution, tother orisgrt,omdTa
to bim on behalf of his client, the fact of such receipt
intimated to the client as early as possible. spite If the client he is a
etc. is against 2
b
of such mass urder, therefore null and void
demands the payment of such money and in
demand the advocate does not pay hinm, he will bo guilty of professional Ethics and
FlduciAry duties.--The
relation between an advocate statute
professional misconduet. It is of
confidential nature requiring a high and his
(18) Rule 28 provides that after the termination of the proceedn8
the advocate shall be at liberty to appropriate towArds the
is fiduciary.
and good faith. In VC. Rangadurai
rolation between
the
V. D. Gopalan
advocate and his
ofdegrJustiecee hdecileirtys
Sen
confidence.cihent
is hs
unexpanded out of that the trust
settled fee due to him any sum remaining observed
a highest
personal and
the amount paid or sent to him for expenses or Any amoun
that has come into his hands in that proceeding.
personal involvingshould
An advocate
not be considered merely an agent.
mere agent or servant of hiis or
purey
(19) Rule 29 provides that where the fee has been left unsettled,
the advocate can deduct out of any moneys of the client
his client.
makes it
He
clear
is more than
that an advocate shall, at
the continuance thereof,
the
commer chent.'yervant
of
Rnle l
make nallcement of hia
remaining in his hands at the termination of the proceeding fòr engagement and during client relating to his such
his connection with ull and
frank disclosure to or about the controversy as are
which he had beon engaged, the fee payable under the rules ot
the Court in force for the time being or by then settled and and any interest
in
either engaging him continuing the to
or his ikely thaffect
e parties
the balance shall be refunded to the client. client's judgment in the duty of an advocate
(20) Rule 30 makes it dear that a copy of the client's account shall that it shall be
Rule 15 provides of his client by all fair and honourable
uphold the interests Rule 22 provides that an advocate to engagement.
fearles iy
shallmeans diwirtehctoutiy,
be furnished to him on demand provided the necessary copying
charge is paid. any other.
or purchase, either in his own namne or innot,
regard to
(21) Rule 31 requires an advocate not to enter into arrangements or indirectly, bid for benefit or for the benefit of any other any other
his own
wherebyy funds in his hands are converted into loans. It makes name, for
it clear that an advocate shall not enter into arrangements property sold in the
execution of a decree or order in any
suit, person, anorry
whereby funds in his hands are converted into loans. other proceeding in which
he was in any way professionally appeal
(22) Rule 32 prohibits an advocate to lend money to his cient for an advocate from
prohibition, however, does not preventwhich his cient may
This
for or
engaged
bidding
the purpose of any action or legal proceedings in which he is client any property
the advoçate is expressly himself
purchasing for his
engaged by such cient. It provides that an advocate shall not
lend money to his client for the purpose of any action or legal
bid for or purchase, provided
writing in this behalf. Rule 24 makes it clear that an advocate shall natin authorisedlegally
proceedings in which he is engaged by such client. The do anything whereby he abused or takes advantage of the
explanation to this rule makes it cdear that an advocate shall reposed in him by his client. confidence
not be held guilty for a breach of this rule if, in the course of In the case of PD. Gupta v. Ram Murti, an advocate purchased
a pending suit or proceeding and without any arrangement with property which was subject-matter of litigation from his chent at k
the client in respect of the same, the advocates feel compelled aWay price. There was a doubt cast on the client's title to the propert
by reason of the rule of the Court to make a payment to the ond the advocate was aware of this fact. He sold the property to a thmi
Court on.account of the client for the progress of the suit or
proceodings.
(23) Rule 33 provides that an advocate who has, at any time, advised 1. A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. Slale of Tamil Nadu, AlR 2011 SC 308.
in connection with the institution of a suit appeal or other 2. Ibid.
8. AIR 1979 SC 281.
4. In the matte of Mahabat Ali Khan, AIR 1958 AP 116
1, In tho matter of PJ Ratnamn, AIR 1962 AP 201 5, AR 1998 SC 283.
 IAN AION
LSGAL IHICA, ActoUNTAI ITY Or LAWYEIS A DrNH
profonsional mi4sTduct.
porson and mndo profit. Ho wAN held guilty of tho appallant ndvocnte
In Vkas Denhpande v Bar Couneil oftheIndin,'
complainants facing death
took advantago of the situntion that míarupronontation in his
4Entenco and obtained the power of attorney on Bonidos, th apellnnt
fnvour and sold the proparty of tho coTnplainants. for his gnin. T'he
advocato fraudulently appropriated the sale-procoods
profossional misconduct. The hat whrt n t a
Court held thnt he had committed a grave permanently debarred him in fizing fees the lawyers shnai
1id
Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India
punishment was uphold by the
Irom practising as an advocato. The procseding w
Supremne Court. The Stato Bar Council could not complete the transferred fr * ali be rnaia
the complaint was to be avoded by the lswyers raawatis r a n tie
within a period of one year and therofore 36B of the Advocates Act and self-re%pect and with his rigtt to reeve rosras vy t
to the Bar Counil of India under Section India passod sorvics und la suit, with disnte shosld te
thereupon the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of and this injustice, impositisms n fraud. r a
the eforosaid order for perhanontly debarring him from practice Cartr' has statud hat in fizzing the fas
fzir s
order was found proper by thé Supreme- Court. appointed time used and the kill esnplorged, the
aTPITt trd s .
In Haish Chand Slngh v. S.N. Tripathi, a senior advocate case. He fn iuas err
the gervÍces as welI as the cuatSary harze cher that
try
consolidation y iaye
his own junioT As mukhtar of complainant incomplainant's property in lav/yerg in general practicCe He baz maie t
misguided his junior and tried to dispose of cares for hig reputation nld prefer to redee bis charza r t r
guilty of
favour of his own father. The senior advocate was heldtwo years. engage in litigation fT their collecti
professional misconduct. He was suspended from practice for C.L Anand has abiy s D e i up the
maters be aim
Hoffman has stated
and consideration in fizing he arnount f fee thee are s iolsw
"To my cient I will be faithful; and in their causes zealousdo 8o; G) The qualification and standing the adveate vh K
industrious. Those who can afford to compensate me, mast meang render profesional Bervice. It is eident that a r er e r
client's
but I shall never close my ear or heart because my by a persoa of guperio dxatoa and r xerce s
causes, are of all
Are low. Those who have none and who have just shall receive to be moTe valuable and f tette gualty thao be t r a
others, the best entitled to sue or be defended; and they by a person who is leas quahfed
a due portion of my services, cheerfully given." (ii) The difficulty of the problem invoived in the case
In Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India, certain amount
connection with the intricate the case, the reater will be he degree t
was deposited with the advocate for decree-holder innegotiation between amount of labour required
settlement in -execution proceedings under
(iüi) The amount of time reguired to render
profesatal e
fructified and
decree-holder and judgment-debtor. The settlement was not the advocate (iv) The amount involved ia he suit
property of the judgment-debtor was auctioned but
the thus, did not return the (v) Tbe renult expected to be accoTmpiiahed 2s à cosetece
retained the money deposited with him and,judgment-debtor. The Court lawyer's exertion.
amount either to the decree-holder -or to the returning the amount either (vi) The customary changes of the Bar fo ch servce
held that the action of the advocate in not retaining the same Actualy there is no hard and fast rule as to tte fixato t e í
to the decreo-holder or to the judgment-debtor and of the professional 2nd the cheni I
with himself was not in consonance with the standardsadvocate was taken It depends on the agreenent between the isadvacate
enttled t neaD
absence of such agreement an advOcate
ethics expected from an advocate. The conduct of the the basis ´of the quantum meruii rule. If tbe fee payabie o n
as professional misconduct.
Advocate's Fee Fixation of fee The rules framed by the Bar paid he may file suit for its recoveery o avod the ontversy e
advocates advocates should settle the fee at the ume of engagement Itwd e
Council of India do not prescribe the fee to be clainmed by the reuce
for their professional services and it has been left to be
settled by the better if the exact terms of the cor.tract reating to the fee
anCJ
private agreements. However Rules 11 and 38 are notable. Rule 11 into writing. In the case of Ranu Sngt ln e Sulata
1. AIR 2003 S.C. 308 observed :
2. AIR 1997 8C 879. "It would increase the dnnty of the protessoa as
a, Rerol ution XVUL 1, Carter. ) N, BAacs of Ld fes p s6
4. lbid
5. AIR 1997 SC 1338
2. In re Ranut Singh. AIR 1936 AL 359
 purity of a ommen ractice gew up mdor which oxact terms of the aro payahle or not to the alvuoate cannot be decded in proeendings flent
ntrat of ongrmnt of counsol woro rduced into writing hy client elaiming return of his papers or Alee However the auwate
preferably sined hy the ient and maintained in tho Advocatey may roeort to logal romedies for unpaid foe or ramuneratian han been
offiee. Sueh a ontract would make it impwaible for any disputo or held that the dispute egaring foex in a as to ba dechted tn an
misapprehension to arise in futuro. nppropriate procveding in the Court
Rulo $S framed by the Bar Couneil of ndin, with tho oljet to An advecnto has fduciary ralation with his client and oeupies a
povent unhealthy ompetition, prvides that an advocato shall not Cept
n foo les than the foe
|oaition of trustee with regand to the money of his client whieh ames in
taxable under the rules when tho client is able his posseion. Thus, an advoente is troated a n truateneadvonate
in relatin to
to pay the same. his client's money which comes in hia ponAONsion IÀ an refue
Contingent fee.-The fee depending upon the succes8 of the suit or to givo the client the money received for him he will be hoid auilty of
procoeding (0.e., contingont fee) is regarded ns against the publie policy. pofosaional misconduet. In a case the Court has held that if an advveate
The ngreement for contingnt foe is hit by Section 23 of the Indian retains. the client'% money in spite of demnand he will be gulty of
Contract Act Rule 9 framed by the Bar Council of Indiu exprossly misconduct. In another enso an advocnte lent money of hua client to his
provides that an advocate should not uct or plead in any matter in whieh relative in distres for ahort period and aubaequontly made good the
he is hinmsell be pocuniarily interested. Besides rule 20 makes it clear money to his client but not in time He waa held uilty of profeasienal
that an advocato shall not stipulate for a feo contingent on the result of uisconduct. In the case ot J.S. Jadhav Mustafa HM Misnf an
litigation or agree to share the procoeds thervof. In such condition an ndvocate withdrew cortain amount on behalf of his elient rom the Court
advocate cannot be expected to act with sense of dotachment or oljectivity. Receiver but did not pay the whole amount to the client He was bet
In such condition an advocate makes himsclf as a client in tho gurb of guilty of profossional misconduct Certain Rules made by the Bar Caunal
an ndvocate. Such an arroement, thus, dogrades the honourable legal of India are here notable. Rule 23 provides that an advxate ahall not
profession On this i8sue the canon of the profossional ethics of American ujust fee payable to hin by his client aginst his own peronal iability
Bar Association provides that a contract for contingent feo, whero to the cliont which liability does not arise in the course of his onpluymeat
sanctioned by law, should bo roasonable under all the cireumstancos of as an advocato. Rules 26 makes it elear that the advocate shoukd keep
the case including the risk and uncertainty of the componaation, but accounts of the client's money entrusted to him and the aeounta should
should nlways be subject to tho supervision of a court, as to ita show the umounts recoived firom the client or on his behalt, the expenses
reasonablencss. Howover, anothor cunon malkes it clear that the luwyor incurred for him and the debits made on acwnt of feos with rowpotive
should not purchase any interost in tho subjoct-mattor of tho litigation dates aud all other necossary particulars. Rle 26 pruvides that where
which he is conducting. In England an agroement for contingont foe is moneys aro received fhom or on account of a client, he entries tt the
not valid. uCOunte should contain a roferenco as to whether the anounts have been
The agroement for contingont foe is looked upon with dislavour; und received for fees o oxpensos and during the course of the pnxeedings,
later as inconsistont with the high ideals at tho Bar:? n0 ndvocate shall, exceptwith the cousent in writing of the cient
conconod, be at liberty to divert any portion of the expenses towards
Right of lien. toos. Rule 27 iuposOs another duty on the adocates It provides that
In the casce of RD. Sasena v Balrum Prasad Sharma the Supremo where any umount is rocoivod or given to hum on behalt of his client, the
Court has hold that an advocate cannot claim lien over the litigation liloe fact of such rocipt nuust bo intimated tw the chent as early as pable
entrusted to hin for his foos. The Court has held that no profossional Rule 28 lays down that aftor the tormination of the proceedng tàe
can be given the right to withhold the returnablo rocords relating to the udvocate shall bo at liborty to appropriate towands the settled fe due tw
work done by him with his client's matter on the atrength of uny clainm him any sum romaining unexpended, out of the amount pad or sent to
for unpaid remuneration. The akernative is that tho profoasional Ihim for eNpensos or any anmount that has come in his hands n that
concerned can rosort to othor logal ronedios.for such unpaid remuneration. proceeding. According to Rule 29 where the tee has beon left unseltled.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd v A.K. Saxena, tho Suprono Court the advocato shall be entitled to detail, out of any moneys of the chent
has mado it clear that advocato has no lien over tho papora of their eliont. romaining in his hands, at the termination of the proceeding ôùr which
Thereforo, the advocate cannot rotuin flos of his olient on tho ground ho had been engaged, the tee payablo undor tho rules of the Court it
that bis fee has not been paid by him. The quastion A8 to whethor foos
force for the tiue being or by their sottlod and the balance, if any. ahal
1. ln the matter of an Adncule, 4 Cul LJ 260, ln re Bhundara, 9 Jon JLR 102 1, n An wlvocale, AlR 1961 Kor 00
2. CL. Anand, General Princples of Legul Shtes, p 160. 2, bid.
3. AR 2000 8C 2912.
4, A.I R. 2004 S.0 311.
8, In r NK 8eu, AlIR lb02 Cal 551
4, AR I009 80 1335
 t0AI FTHCA, ACLOUNIARHDTY OF LAWYEHN AAENCH HA WATNON
ol
be rofndod to the oliont. An Rule 80 providen n epy of the noeount
neeasary
the olient ahall be urniahed to him on temand providud the
Advocnta to enter nto
copying ubargoa in paid. Rule 1 prohibita nn converted
Arrangementa whereby unda in hin handa nre into lonna 14
providen that nn ndvoeatd mhall not nte into arrangementa whereby
funds in hia handa Are converted into loana given ht na nthers
Rulo 32 prohibita An ndvoonta to lond money to hle ellent for the
purpone of nny nction or lngal procnedingn in which he ta it engngerl by aueh the s*ne s t Mi s trsme
elenr that an npoelte pnrty In eueerent prslhng in w r t e hs han
cliont. However, the explanation to the rule makon by the Bar CoHnel rf lndia mmees it lenr tht an
ndvocnto ahall not be held guflty far brench of thia rulo, if, In tho eourna nrlvised in enneetin with the institun f t
nny time,
with the shnil st et
of a pending wuit or procoeding and without any arrangemont other mnaltor or hoe drawn plearlinge r srtert r a perty,
client in rmapect of the nAmo, the ndvoonto foela compelled by ronson thaof nppour ot ploal, frr the oppite party The hasin f thia ruis ibetst
*prfNr* t
tho rulo of the Court to make a payment to the oourt on ncoounts of ho this that thera in likelihnn t a i i t y f minss f ths
client for the progrown of the ault or procoodings. tnguturat
glven to him by hia for mer eient In the rase f VC
Prohibltion nm to appoaranco for oppOnite party and uso of (Inpalan, the ureme Court hns held that in rase an stste
finde thhrt
informntion to the dotriment of tho cllont.Tho rolatlon botwaon tho Lhore will be conflict of interast in aking Hp s f is tiet., i
advocate and his clients in of trunt. ond confidence, It. ta tho duty of an nhould handoyor tho trief to hus lient and shetled nt nand e
ndvoonto not to use the infornntion obtained by him an ndvocnto to tho nnother to tnke his plaes
detrimont of tho cliont. This duty continues oven aflor tho rolatlon of hrief fr the
ia tho duty of an advocate not to In tlhg caso of Gurubauppr an sdvnrnte aeeeptet the
advocato And cliont has oonsod. It plnintiff nnd yponrnd nt tho intial atage and theroafer n
tho
disclose the inform ationa communicntod o him by his cliont. If tho Govornmont plendor on hohnlf f the #ata whh wus s ciefeniast the
dinclosure of such informations is allowed, the clionta would not diuclos Ault. He waa hsld gullty of pronfensional miseonduct
their seorets to thoir advocatos and the advocatos would not be able to
discharge thoir functions properly. Tho cliont's communicationsEvidonco
to the In the caao of Channlra Sehhar Sonu, the Suprene Cmsrt haa
obaorved that an advocats may ehanyo nide if ozprens cons4er1t tsv try
advocates have beon protoctod undor soction 126 of the Indian
Act. From Section 126 it evident that an advocato is not permitted, all concorned nftor n full disclosure of tha facts In this case ths Snyrehe
unlesa with his cliont's express consent, to disclose any communication Court has hold that, it is not in scrdance with profeasional iquettu
made to him in the course and for the purposo of his employment as for an advocate whilo retained by one party o accept the trief f the
such advocate, by or on bohalf of his client or atato tho contents or other. t is unprofessional tu repressnt ennflct1ng ntrrest xEt y
condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the 0xpresa consent given by all concerned after a full disclsure of the iacts
On this i9sue the canons of the American Bar AaMeaton ia alan
course and for purposos of his professional omployment or to disclose any
advice given by him to his cliont in tho courso and for the purpose of notable. Ono of tho canons provides that it is the chuty of a lawyer t
such employment. However, the proviso to Soction 126 provides that the time of retainer to discloso to th9 client all the ircnmstances of hia
nothing in this section sh¡ll protect from disclosure rolations to tho partios and any interest in or in connection with the
(1) any Buch communication made in furtherance of any illegal controversy which might influence the client in the eietinn of uns
purpose,
It makes it clear that it is unprofossional to represent conflicting intereats
(2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorngy or vakil, oKcept by express consent of all concerned given after a full dasciovure of
in the course of his employment as such howing that any crimo tho facts. The lawyer is under duty to represent the client with undivided
or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his fidelity and not to divulgo his socruts or confidencos. He is forbdden ziso
omployment. Section 126 makes it clear that it is immaterial the subsequent accaptance of retainer or omployment fromn others n
whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or matters advorsely affecting any interest of the client with reapect to wheh
vakil was not directed to Buch fact by or on behalf of his client. confidenco has been reposed. The another canon of tka American Bar
From the Explanation to Section 126 it is evident that the Association providos that a lawyor should not in any way communcate
obligation stated in this söction continues after the employment 1. Soo Stale v. lallt Mohan Nunda, AlR 1961 Oriss* 1
has coased. The object of this provision is that there should be 2. AIR 1979 9C 281.
3, AIR 1964 AP 261.
absolute confidence between the client and his advocato and this 4. AIR 1983 SC 1612
should be protected. Section 129 of the Indian Evidenco Act 5. AIR 1983 8C 1012.
 ETHICS OF LEGAL PROFESSION
84 LEGAL ETHICS, ACCOUNTABILITY OF LAWYERS &BENCHBAR RELATION
interview not unwarranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring
upon the subject of controversy with a party roprosonted by counsel, much published in
less should he undertake to negotinte or compromise newspaper, comments or producing his photograph to beconcerned. The
the matter with him connection with case in which he has been engaged or
but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent sign-board
upon the lawyer
most particularly to avoid evorything that may tend to mislead Bign-board or name-plate should be of a reasonable size. ThePresident or
he is or has been
not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise a party or stationary should not indicate that he has been
as to the law.
him Member of a Bar Council or of any Association or that
any particular cause
associated with any person or organisation or with
Canon 37 of the American Bar Association provides that it is the any particular type of work or that
duty of a lawyer to preserve his client's confidence. This duty outlasts the or matter or that he specialises in
he has been a Judge or an Advocate-General.
lawyer's employment and extends as well to his employees and neither of clear that this Rule (Le.
them should accept employments which involves or may involve the By inserting a proviso it has been made
advocates furnishing website
Rule 36)) will not stand in the way of
disclosure or use of these confidence, either for the private advantage of to and as
information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimationinput in the
the lawyer or his employees or to the disadvantage of the client Bar Council of India. Any additional other
his knowledge and consent and even though there are without approved by the
of India will be deemed to
other available particulars than approved by the Bar Councilsuch advocates are liable to
sources of such information. A lawyer should not be violation of this Rule (i.e. Rule
36) and
when he discovers that this obligation prevents thecontinue employment be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocate Act, 1961.
full duty to his former or to his new client. The canon performance of his
makes it Schedule
that if a lawyer is falsely accused by his client, he is not precluded clear
from
disclosing the truth in respect to the accusation. The announced intention
of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which 1. Name
he is bound to respect. He can make such
disclosures as may be nmecessary |2. Address
to prevent the act or protect thOse against whom it is threatened. Telephone Numbers
3. Duty to opponent E-mäil ID
Rules 34 and 35 framed by the Bar Council of India contain (a) Enrolment Number
3
provisions as to the duties of an advocate to the opponent. Rule 34 (b) Date of Enrolment
provides that an advocate shall not in any way communicate or negotiate Council
upon the subject-matter of controversy with any party represented by an (c) Name of State Bar
where originally enrolled
advocate except through that advocate. Rule 35 provides that an advocate
Council on
shall do his best to carry out all legitimate promises made to the opposito (d) Name of State Bar
whose roll name stands
party even though not reduced to writing or enforceable under the rules
of the Court. currontly
Association
It is the duty of an advocate not to engage in discussion or argument (e) Name of the Bar
Advocate is
about the subject of the dispute with the opposite party without notice to of which the
his counsel. Resolution 43 of Hoffman provides - Member
"I will never enter into any conversation with my opponent's Professional and Academic
4.
client relative to his claim or defence, except with the consent and Qualification.
in the presence of his counsel." Civil,
Canon 9 of the American Bar Association is also notable. It provides 5. Areas of Practice (e.g.
Criminal, Taxation, Labour ote.).
that a lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel; much les8 should he (Name & Signature)
undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should
Declaration
deal only with his counsel.
information givon is truo.
4. Duty to the colleagues I, horeby, declare that tho
Rules 36, 37, 38 and 39 framed by the Bar Council of India deal (Name & Signatur:)
with the dutios of an advocate to the colloagues. Rule 36 providos that because it my lead to
unhoalty
an advocate shall not 8olicit work or advertise (either diroctly or indiroctly) Tho advortising is prohibitod
whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, porsonal communications
 LFGAL ETHICS, ACCOINTAAMITY Or AWYEs ABENCH BAR AELATION

competition among the advocates. IHowever, the ndvertising ta eonnidered rigeit 4

Walfars omithRt sf th
beneficial in the sense that it will provide infornatim to tho puhlic nn funrl shall he mansgel hy thm tims ta lime y to Har Cstesi #
frin
to the advocates and their specialisnd nren of Inw nA well. It ia bntter to Indin in the tmnner ornsorihert
ndnenten
allow tho advortisOMent but there must be propor guidelines so that it Indin frt the wlfar« of the the total r s rolnete
Aceording to Run 413 the rest H%
may not load to unhoalthy competition And may not roaut in lowering Artveeata Wolfara P ind Cnmtte fnr the
down the dignity of the legal profoasion. by tha Bar Concil of India 'Wofarn
welfnra rf atueate ift rseper f
Rule 37 provides that an Advocate shall not permit his namo to ho Stata ahall he itiliaed for the Har Ctineis anet this fsrt
roqgertive atn
used in aid of or to make poasiblo the unnuthoriaed practice of law by Bchemes apor sored hy tho Advocaten Wnifnrr Curntn1tta ar the #sto
any agency. ahall ha #dministored ty the annually tn tho Bmr Comrl # Inea
Rule 38 makes it clear that an Advocate shall not accept a fee less which ahall subnits ita report trnnfer f an atuete hrm ts
According to Rpla 41(4) m cane of
than the fee taxable under the rules when tho client is able to pay the Cineil, RYh f the tetai rm
Same. Htate Bar Council to other Stato Bar Alvocatas Helfnrs Cmntos frr
collected 8o far in Bar Crncil of India
According to Rule 39 An advocate shall not enter appearance in any the nid Adventa w 9ngitally
Case in which there is already a vakalatnama or memo of appearance the State under Rula 41/1) whers Com miton ha
Atvocatn Wolfaro
filed by an advocate engaged for a party excopt with his consont; in CABO enrolled, would get transførred to the whieh the sad Ariureats has go
Bar Council of India for the State to
such consent is not produced he shall apply to the Court stating reasons himself transferred.
why the said consent should not be produced and he shall appear only
As per Rule 42 if an advOcate
fails to pay the aforosaid sm thin
after obtaining the permission of the Court. The object of this Rule is to providod undor Rule 40, the Secrotary sf the State
9eCuro goodwill among the advocates.' The advantages of the Rule have the prescribed time as show canse within a month why
been well summed up by C.L. Anand, in his book, General Principle8 of Bar Council shall issuo to him notice to
be not suspended. In case the advneate pays che
Legal Bthica. It prevents the temptation of seducing cients from coungel his right to practice in this Rule and with1n the
prescribed
who have already been engaged. The Counsel already engaged can, in amount together with the late fee if the
period specified in the notice, the proceedings shall be droppedcause, a
this way, roquire that all his remuneration shall be paid to him before advocate does not pay the amount or fails to show vufficient
the client øngages another counsel.' Besides, it is one of the professional State Bar Counc1l in this
obligation, of an advocate to dissuade cient from changing his counsel committee of three members constituted by the tho advocate to practise.
order suspending the right of
unless he has a strong reason for it and to satisfy himself that the reason behalf may pass an cease to be in force when the
However, the order of guspension ghall
is proper and adequate.' All lawyers are brothers at the Bar. The the late fee specified in
il-feolings of clients should not affect their cordial relations. An advocate advocate concerned pays the amount along with behalf from the State Bar
a certificate in this
Bhould be courteous to the other advocates. this Rule and obtain
fee, see said Rule 42).
Council. (As to the amount of fee or late
5. Other Duties consequences of non-payment of the sad
Rule 42 doals with the
Rule 40 requires every advocate on the rolls of the State Bar Council amount by the advocate. It provides that if an
advocate fa1ls tw pay the
under Ruie 40, the
to pay a certain sum (specified in this Rule) to the State Bar Council. aforesaid sum within the prescribed time as provided
Rule 41(1) provides that all the sums so collected by the StateBar Council shall issue to him a notice to show
Socretary of the State Bar Council
shall be credited in a separate fund to be known as "Bar Council of India a month why his right to practice be not suspended. In case
cause within per
Advocates Welfare Fund for the State" and shall be deposited in the bank together with late fee of rupees five
the advocate pays the amount
as provided thereunder. part a month subject to a maximum of rupees thrty within
month or a
According to Rule 41(2) the Bar Council of India Advocates Welfare the period specified in notice, the proceedings shall be dropped If the
sufiient cause, 4
Fund Committeo for the State shall remit 20% of the total amount advocate doos not pay the amount or fails to show
Councal in this
collected and eredited to its account, to the Bar Council of India by the Committee of thrco members constituted by the State Bar
r1ght of the advocate to practuse
end of every month which shall be eredited by the Bar Council of India bohalf may pass an order suspending the force when the
and the Bar Council of India shall deposit the 8aid amount in a separate However the order of suspension shall cease to he in
amount along with a late fee of rupees fifty
advocato concerned pays the
1. C.L Anand, General Principles of Lagal Ethics, p. 183. obtains a certificate in this behalf from the State Bar Couneil.
2. lbid. and
3, lbid. Rulo 43 provides that an advocate whoAdvocates has been convicted of an
Act' or has beea
4. Tbid. oflence mentionod undor Section 24A of the
6. Ibid.
6. Ibid. 1. As to Soction 24, see Chaptor II.
 88
LEGAL ETHICS, ACCOUNTABILITY OF LAWYERS& BENCH-BAR RELATION
ETHICS OF LEGAL PROFESSION
declared insolvent or has taken full
engages in busincss or any avocationtime sorvice or part-time servico or Welfaro Committee so constituted. The State Bar Councils may suggest
an advocate or has incurred any inconsistent with his practising as suitable modifications in the welfaro Behemes or suggest more schemos,
Advocates Act or the rules disqualification mentioned in the
that effect to the respective made thereunder, shall Bend a
State Bar Council in which thedeclaration tois
but such modifications or, such sugyested schemes shall have effect only
after approval by the Bar Council of India.
enrolled, within 90 days from tho date of such advocate The Rule requiros the State Bar Couneil to maintain soparate
advocate does not file the said declaration or fails todisqualification. If the account in respect of the Advocate Welfare Fund which hall be audited
for not filing such show 8ufficient cause
declaration provided therefor, the Committee
by the State Bar Council constituted
annually along with other accounts of the State Bar Council and 8end
under
right of the advocate to practise. Rule 42 may paSs orders the same along with the auditor's roport to the Bar Council of India.
it shall besuspending
the The first proviso of this Rule provides that the Bar Council of India
However,
Committee to condone the delay on an application being open to the Advocates Welfare Fund Committee for the State shall be competent to
behalf. Alongwith it, an advocate who had made in this appoint its own staff in addition to the staff of the Bar Council of the
and before the coming into after the date of his enrolment
force of this rule, becomes subject to State entrusted with duty to maintain the account of the fund if their
the disqualifications any of funds are adequate to make 8uch appointment. The salary and other
mentioned in this rule, shall
days of the comming into within a priod of 90 conditions of the said staff be determined by the Bar Council of India
force of this rule send declaration
this rule to the respective State Bar referred to in Advocates Welfare Fund Committee for the State.
enrolled and on failure to do so by Council in which the advocate is The second proviso to this Rule provides that the Chairman f the
this rule would apply. such advocate all the provisions of
Bar Council of India Advocates Welfare Fund Committee for the Stete
Rule 44 provides, an appeal shall lie to the Bar shall be compétent to make temporary appointment for a period not.
the instance of an aggrieved Council of India at exceeding six months in one transaction if the situation so requires subiet
the date of the order passed under advocate within a period of 30 days from to availability of fund in the said committee for making such appointment
Rules 42 and
Rule 44-A (1) provides that there shall be a 43Bar(stated above). Rule 44-B makes it clear that the Bar Council of India shall ntihse
Advocates Welfare Committee consisting of five Council of India the funds received under Rule 41(2), (atated above), in accordance with
amongst the members of the Council. The termn of members elected from the schemes which may be framed from time to time.
Committee shall be co-extensive with their ternm in the member8 of the
the Bar Council of (2) Duty in imparting training,Rule 45 framed by the Bar
India. Çouncil of India makes it clear that it is improper for an advoeate tn
As per Rule 44-A (2) (i) every State Bar demand or accept fees or any premium from any person as a considerati.
Advocate Welfare Committee known Council shall have an
as Bar Counal of India Advocates for imparting training in law under the rules prescribed by a Sate Par
Welfare Committee for the State. Council to enable such person to qualify for enrolment under te
As per Rule 44-A (2) (i) the Committee shall Advocates Act, 1961.
consist of member, Bar
Council of India from the State concerned who shall be the (3) Duty to render Legal Aid -Rule 46 provides that ere
Chairman of the committee the two members elected from amongst ex-officio
the advocate shall in the practice of the profession of law bear in mnd ta
members. According to Rule 44(2) (iii) the Secretary of the State Bar any one genuinely in need of a lawyer is entitled to legal assistance eves
Council concerned will act as ex-oficio Secretary of the Committee. though he cannot pay for ît fully or adequately and that within the limita
According to Rule 44 A (2) (iv) the term of the member, Bar Council of of an advocate's economic condition, free legal assistance to the indigert
India in the Committee shall be co-extensive with his term in the and oppressed is one of the highest obligations, as an advocate OWes
Council of India. As per Rule 44 A (2) (v) the term of the members Bar the society.
from the State Bar Councils shall be two years. The Rule 44 A elected (4) Restriction oa other employments,-Rules 47, 48, 49, 5, 51
(2) (vi)
provides that two members of the committee shall form a and 52 deal with the restrictions on other employment.
meeting of the committee. quorum of any
Rule 47 provides that an advocate shall not personally engage in E
The Rule requires every State Bar Council to open an business but he may be a sleeping partner in a firm doing buanes
the nanme of the Bar Council of India Welfare accounts in
in any Nationalised Bank No amount shall be Committee provided that in the opinion of the appropriate State Bar Counal àe
for the State
unless the cheque is signed by the Chairman withdrawn from the Bank,
of the Welfare
nature of the business is not inconsistent with the dignity d
profession. Rule 48 makes it clear that an advocate may be directar
and its Secretary. Committee
The Rule also provides that the State Bar chairman of the Board of Directors of a Company with or without
Welfare Scheme approved by the Bar Council Council shall implement ordinary sitting fee-provided none of his duties are of an erete
of India through Advocates character. An advocate shall not be a managing director or a secretar
any company. Rule 49 provides that an advocate shall not be a full e
 LQAL EIHCS, A(VQNWTANLIIY OF LAWYEAS &BCNCHBAH MELAIKIN

salariod employoe af any person, govørnmønt, firm, oarporatlon or cancern,

80 long as he continues to practiso and shall, on taking up any 8uoh
employmont intimate the fhct to the Bar Oounail on whoso rall his namo
appears and shall thoreupon' ceaNe to practisu as An udvooate Ao long as
he continues in such employment. CHAPTEA V
Rule 50 pirovides that an advocate who has inherited or Buooeeded
by survivorahip, to a family buainess may continue it, but may not PUNISHMENI FOR PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER
personally partiaipate in the mAnageent thereof. He my eontinue to MISCONDUCT
hold a share with the others in any buainesa which has descended to him
by survivorahip or inheritance or by will provided he does not personally BYNOPSIS
participate in management thereof.
1. Professlongi or other Miscondust-Meorirg ord Arrta
According to Rulo 51 an advocate may review Parliamentary Bills 2. Ihe body of uthotty ernpowHGd to pAri tor ptesrd
for a remuneration, edit logal text booke at a salary, do 'presa-votting' for of other rrlsconduct.
newspapers, coach pupla for legal examination, set and examino question I State Bar Counc# ard ts dscipárory Gomttee
papers and subject to tho ruloa againat advertising and full-time
employment, engago in broadcasting journalism, lecturing and toaching (1) Orgaisottor
subject, both legal and non-lagal. (2) Inttaoton and procedue
Rule 52 makes it clear that nothing in these rules shall provent an (3) Powers
advocate from acoepting after obtaining tho consent of the State Bar II. Bar Council of incin od ts disccinary ooTEite
Council part-time employment provided that in the opinion of the Stato () Organisoticn
Bar Council, the nature of the employment does not confliot with his (2) Initiatlon and Procacre
professional work and is not inconsistent with the dignity of tho (3) Powers
profession. This rule shall be subject to such directives if any as may be 3. Complaint agoinst odvocates gnd procadure o De toiicwed
issued by the Bar Council of India from time to time.
by the Disciplinary Cammitee
3. Punishment for the breach 4. Remedies against the order ot ounismert
See Chapter V. (1) Revew
(2) Appeal
5. Some Important cases relating to prctessong a GIner mscondcr

Chapter Vof the Advocates Act deals with he cotuct d styecates

and punishment of advocates for miscontuct The prorsons of is
Chapter may be discussed uader the folowng heaings
1. Professional or other Misconduct -Meaning and Ambit.
Section 35 of the Advocates Act provides in respet f
for professional or other misconduct. It provies hat where opusbment
rept
a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Councl has
reasa beiev ts
any advocate on its roll has been guly of
professuUn et
misconduct, it shall refer the case for tispusa
committee. Section 5 empowers the dscipBinary cumittee tsTphnary
Ngr
the advocate orsuspend the advocate om pratce su d
may deem fit or renove the name of te svate trva de ae r
advocates. However, at ppeal gaiasi tàe orer
committee ay be preferrt to the Rar Coune f hateod bNTopnary
to the Supreme Court against the order the Bac C u
 ia toply he tvnste utended thnt whendvo tha nmnunt
luon aluntod an pE o the munt venvevahte ytha npleant
hom tho appllonit ta huethar antd that tha aeunt daalrl y the
CNAPTER V yplleant had lbaan taken away tw tho praaanwu at hus hualanal and lha
SOME IMPORTANT CASES IRELAING TO npllennt,
PROFESSIONAL OR OHER MISCONDUCI ""he ontantlon nt he vale, hnt he w t wtlyawn lay itm
hom the 000 payahla lo the nmplalnant hat eun adjuatet eaa
Deciaion of Diolplinavy Committee
of the BAr Counotl of ndin
1. Smt. Niya Rat w Bita Ran
In thin nntter an advoente withdrew amounta om Oowt MA leurotal
Amounts doponitnd in uita and it wan not patd to tle oonplalnant oe
any nccounta wero furniahod One of the member o tho DlackplluAry r illolly ratnnlng tUe smont n wihlewal
Committen of MP 8ate Bar (ounoil did not nign the judyment wlthin
limitation period under Soction M0 of tho Alvooatn Aet And therefora
the caxe wan trnnaforred to the RAr Ceunel of India "he iaclplluary
prved he mit
Oommittoe of the lar Couneil of India decided the caau, "Te ndvowale 9mplalnt falau, "Ilhe complant wnn ound tn beRanyndent Atvuata
pleaded that amount withdrawn waN ndjuatod towardH lha feo duo to lhbm eNpIeHAOd ho vlew hal le nal takon by the
nnd nlO towardn othor expenaEa lbut it wha lot fouml run and not
emmitan eru
aconpted, And thereforo, found guilty of profnaional mlseonduct for illegally lhell gullky of protunulnal miaeondet "he wg
retaining the amount. It is well aattlod that if Al Advooate withdraWA A)y lkonpondent Alvoenta to rehnd a 9,000 n the mnplninnt
amount of hia elint'» money, he ia duty bound to aooouust tor th AHme.
In thin CABo the advoento WA# (bund to have withdrawn oertain amont
but failod to furniah the A00Ounta or w malntaln thom n4 l4 roqulrel
under tho rules of rofunsional ethies Ile was, hus, found gullty of f Ha
Advueate tor a prlod of on0 yuur. In ease he amant Conmmitt
profoasional miaconduct for llagally retalning the amount. lla was ordered alongwith lntereat and usl of la i,900 n4 ordorad by the
to refund the anount of Ra. 2,odo with intoront @10% per nnnum wltlh nob pald by the advouatu o thu vumplaiuant within a pril of twy im
coNt of Rs, 6,000, within two months nnd the Commiltee pnAsed ordur for trom o ruelpl uf the orlur, thu advoents wua las undergy pen
wuwponnion for a period of one yoar. In oAse of fallure to pay within two An udlllonal purlud of I* montha During the purlol of uns
months to undergo suNponsion for additional period of aix months, Hdvoeate was not, enltlud to praetles in any Crt, athrlty or
In thix cANO the complaint was iled before the Diseiplinary in Indin,
Committoe of the M.P Btate Bar Council by Bmt, Hiyn Bai nguinsl tho . Bmt. Urmlla Devl v. Hita llam Hingh,'
Rowpondent Advocnte, Hri Bita Ram Hingh. The complaint wa8 that the In thia oa80 the eomplainant wus 9 mmey lunler luly re
advocato was ogaged by tho complainant for iling money suitw galnst under the Monay Lnders Aet. Hhe engagud the llespnlent
13 porsons and assing the decred in oxoutlon proceedings, the decretal named Hrd Blta íam Bingh ns her Cuunsel for fling many m
umount WAs depositod which was withdrawn from C.O.D, by tho agalnst her borrower ad sovoral suits were leer oel, he
he did
Roapondunt-advocate but it was not puid w the complainant undadvocnte
that the Hlvoeals Court fuos, CounAul's fae4 and other uxpenses Th u
not furnish the acovunt therefur. It was ulso alleged Informatlon to the allegod that the said advoeate used to withdraw deeretal amo
had com cealed the rea) acta and voldod to givo any tho Courla rom time tw time withouk the wnsent andd knelu
complainant on Mome pretext ur the other.
The respondunt Advocnte saÍd that he had not withdrawn th0 amount
complalnant. Inltially in his wrillen statament hs ndvoeate gdr
from the C.C.D. In addition, the complainant allsged that the ndvocnt
ho had wilhdrawn the amount but thereafler in amended ate
had not pajd the full Court lee in Cjvil suit aghinst one Dhani Ram. In denled it. In the view of the adnission it was fur the adyuca
, HOI 1ruaL, Balockodl Judlgmente on Prutesienal Wthies, p9
1. BCI Trust, Boloced Judgrnents on Profeaslona) PAhles, p 28
that he had not withdrawn the ament The Iieininay (unmittee of enplainant The onpBainant ns ecenatl in g i that s heng
the oae tu the oneluainn that, though the oxAt amount at nggod the reaohtat o opresent im in the ei pe
withdrawal by the Reapndent Avoente waN ot puoved but enrtainly ame Arising ot of taere* ngaint the tqment tettnra he rvee St tis
amounts were withdrawn hv the Riepndent Advwate and he fhiled te whata anmount was tut pat ta tho mn pBainant hgnmev Cothee
Aunt the aame to the myainan in ayite of the notie his eondhuct of the Mar ueil of fndia haa het that Rate 23 tg tate s Setu
of the Reaondent wan pwofnianal miavondct The (ommitee expreated Il of Chaptee I of l'art V af tha RCT Rutos spefieatly psAe that
the vinw that whatevor money wan withdrAwn wAn Not pad to the ndveate ahall konp the avunt of the otient mey ntstet to
eumylainant in pite of demand made ly hw and (ho aeount o prepared shout ahow the msnt rt fram the
The Committee And that notin wan given ly the mmplainant to olient or on hin behal the xpensen ineurred fr hin and htn wate m
the atvonte to lrniah anta fr the Amounta withdrawn thm the Aeount of fron with raspeotive aten ant all oho asary pariemiars
CeD but thin noticn was not replied hy the advoonta. n the opinion of Whenever the meney* ara revejvoxt mar on aoount fa heet ie
the Oommittee failur on the part of the advonte in oplylng the notice entries ahould ontain a mferono an whethar the amoneta ave ba
or urnialing the aOnta for the anmount withdrawn wAn pofenional received or foos or axpenaea and during the cerso t the peeeiaga
mineonduct. no dvoento ahall, xeept with tha ent n wntngé the ilent
concorne, be at liberty o divart anv portion of t pen w*e
The Connittee axAminod OvOrnl doumenta ubmittod by the foon, Where Any amount is acejvei or given tn hies n ehaif af h sent
complainant and came to the ondluxion that aoveal Amounta wern the fact of auch receipt umust bo intimated t tho chent a oavt
withdrawn by the Ndvooate. Sinoo there wAR An allegntion that thoæe poaaible. Aner the ternination of the prseeitng the actvate hail e
amounta were in the handwriting of the Reapondent, it wAR neceAnAry Ar at liberty to appropriato towarda the ettlnd foea fre to m y
him to explain them The Committee hold that the ndvocnte hnd romaining unexpendod out af the amonnt patt r seni le penses
withdrawn the amount and it wan buttrned by own admiauion made by or any Amount that haa come inta his hanxi in that retng ehere he
him in original unamended reply The Committeo Aurther hold that the foe han been laft to be unsettled, the adveeato shal i antitad to edket
advvonte had wrangly donied the withdrawal. The argumont of the
out of any moncya of the client emanng in his handa at the at
ndvocate that he had not withdrawn any amount and therafore he did of the procooding tor which he had been ongaged, the e pavsaie N
not mako any paymont ta, the complainant wnw not aecopted by the tho rulos of the Court in forco for the tiue benng hv thon ettiai aed
Oommitteo. the balanco (f any ) ahall be elunded to the oient
The Committee held that he Ronpondont Advocnto withdrow Rs. In view of tho above dutes of the oient the 'an mtt ed t
40,000 in all and therofore he ahould pay thin nmount to the omplainaut the ndvocato had ailed to diacharge hw duien towarda the cient a0 he
within a poriod of two montha. The Committoo held since he wuN intlicted neithor furnished the acounts of tho rowverv f he stta
NOntonoe of suNponaion jn another cAae for aperivd of ono yeur, tho NAmO ditleront jucgment-debtors ror etunded the sad Ounta he ckent
puninhment in imposed in this caae and the NuNponaion of both the caseN nor proved the tlaim o> settled or unetled feew pavable hy the cient t
would run concurrontly. hìn. The Committee further opined thai ailogatons ax to the rwevery
T"he Committoe held that tho cost of the caao (that wa Ra. 6,000) anounta fhom ditlorent judgment debtors n aterent axecuton wNhngN
would be paid by the Roapondent Advocate within one month, (aillng were of tlhe yoar 1984 onwarda and onpiaint waa aiso ilai in s8 snd
which he had to undergo suapension for ono yonr. tho matter waa dolayed in all thexe yeaN ad the uwing eudd et
3. Beorotary Karnataka Khad! Gramudyog Samyukata Bangh, be concluded within vaonable tine, a lenwnt view sAd b kaken
agaiust him, The Committee held the avwate guitty of hgviag omnvi
Benguri, Hubli v. J,8, Kulkarni,'
prolosaional miaconduct and ordered that he bu suajeqtt fin pwavtie
The mattor wan firat brought beforo the Karnataka 8nto Bar Counoil lor nperiod of oue yoar thom the date of te revp# of the aner the
proscribed statutory poriod and
but it cquld not be dinposed of within theCouncil of Indin. Commitce dobarrvd hian tom practiing n any Court r êv
theroforo it was tranaferred o ho Bar authority or erao during the ortod of suapenON
In his ause complainant enguged the roupondont advooato, 8ri J.8,
Kulkarni fur filing oxbeution procvodingain tho compelonl Court for the 4. Mrs, M.8. "atwurdhan VK Karwmarkar
oxocution of certain docrvoa obtainod in ovil wut. It was allogod that tlhe In thia cmse the cuuyinant dedto punhaae 00 aTO iant
ndvocata led the exooution procoodinge in the competont Court and he through a rval eatate agent for unter takg an agrieulturnd deveiaget
had rocoivod difforonl anounta towards the decretal anoyita in difloront prnject by foruning a mperativo wiely The niainant eggtlàe
x0cution proceedingu but ho did not pay tho wholo nmount lo he rewoudent Advovate tor wmpletins the neveasary lagal tr nlitine te wM
1, DCI hust, Belected Judgmenta on I'roleuslonal Wlhic. p 48.