Punishment to Advocates

PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER
MISCONDUCTS
ABUSE OF PROCESS

In State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh (AIR

2001 SC 1403) Supreme Court has deprecated the
practice of Courts adjourning cases without
examination of witnesses when such witnesses are
in attendance and observed:
“If a witness is present in court he must be
examined on that day. The court must know that
most of the witnesses could attend the court only at
heavy cost to them after contd……
CONTD…..

keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur

suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of
allowance which a witness may be paid by the court is
generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by
him. It is a sad plight in the trial Courts that witnesses
who are called through summons or other processes
stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to
be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to
another day.” contd….
CONTD….

It was held that an Advocate abusing the

process of court is guilty of misconduct. When
witnesses are present in Court for examination the
advocate concerned has duty to see that their
examination is conducted. Seeking adjournments
for postponing the examination of witnesses who
were present in Court even without making other
arrangement contd….
CONTD……

for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of

advocate’s duty to the court as that would cause
much harassment and hardship to witnesses. Such
dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct
of the advocate concerned.
ABSTAINING FROM WORK

If any counsel does not want to appear in a

particular court, that too for justifiable reasons,
professional decorum and etiquette require him to
give up his engagement in that court so that the
party can engage another counsel. But retaining the
brief of his client and at the same time abstaining
from appearing contd…..
CONTD….

in that court, that too not on any particular day on

account of some personal inconvenience of the
counsel but as a permanent feature, is
unprofessional as also unbecoming of the status of
an advocate.
As it was held in Harish Uppal vs. Union of India
(AIR 2003 SC 739)
ACTING WITHOUT INSTRUCTION OF CLIENT

An advocate withdrawing a case filed on behalf of

client and instituting other legal proceeding without
instruction, by obtaining signatures of the client on
blank papers under false pretext is guilty of
professional misconduct.
Suspension from practice for one year affirmed.
As in Gian Chand Goel vs. Bar Council of India
1997 (11) SCC 108
OFFERING BRIBE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

In Shambhu Ram Yadav vs. Hanuman Das Khatry

(AIR 2001 SC 2509) a complaint was that the
advocate concerned while appearing as a counsel in
a suit pending in a Civil Court wrote a letter to his
client Shri Mahant Rajgiri inter alia stating that his
another client has told him that the concerned judge
accepts bribe and he has obtained several
favourable orders from him in his favour, if he can
influence the judge contd….
CONTD….

through some other gentleman, then it is different

thing, otherwise he should sent to him a sum of Rs.
10,000/- so that through the said client the suit is
got decided in his i.e. Shri Mahant Rajgiri’s favour.
It was held that he was indeed guilty of a
serious misconduct by writing to his client the
letter as aforesaid. Members of the legal profession
are officers of the court. Besides Court, they also
owe a duty to the society which has a vital public
interest in the due administration of justice.
CONTINGENT FEE

Agreement between a lawyer and his client

whereby the lawyer is to be paid his fee only in the
event of successful litigation, is a professional
misconduct. When fees depend upon the result of
litigation then it amounts to speculation.
As held in District Judge vs. J.C.Gandhi (AIR
1956 Bom 739)
It was also held in one case that such agreement is
void as opposed to the Public policy under section
23 of Indian Contract act, 1872 and such conduct
NON PERFORMANCE OF DUTY

In various cases this aspect was considered a gross

professional misconduct when a lawyer after
receiving fees if repudiates the agreement. Even
non payment of fee is no justification for refusing
to attend the case unless this fact is specifically
brought to the notice of the client.
but refusal to attend unless further fees is paid is
a professional misconduct.