Relation with professional ethics:

Here, according to the fact of the case, provisions in the law and verdict of the court, it can be understood
that it is beyond the professional capacity of an agent to plead in front of the court especially during the
course of interrogation and cross examination of the witness evidence. It is solely the authority and
jurisdiction of a legal practitioner who has been certified by a license to do so.
Hence, here the agent by doing so fails to maintain both his professional ethics and professionalism
because he fails to distinguish between the demarcation of a technician and a professional.
The agent and advocate both can possess the traits of professionalism like educational qualification,
knowledge, skill and art, remuneration, effective service delivery but agent as a technician lacks
expertise, ability to deliver judgment comprising rational decision, human value and justice as per section
17, 22 and 23 of Nepal Bar Council Act, 2050.
Moreover, ethics from approach two is considered to be stipulated laws and rules. Hence, going through
the fact of the case, it is found that that the agent has breached the rules by pleading and examining the
witness as stated in Nepal law practitioner Act, 2025 along with its regulation and Nepal Bar Council, Act
2050 which have clearly distinguished between the activities of pleading (cross examination of witness
evidence) and just getting present in judicial offices/authority.