Upload
sarayoo
View
46
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ethics
Citation preview
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
1Createdby:AnchitKhokher
CONTENTSPAGE
TABLEOFCASES..01INTRODUCTION...............03WHATISPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT?...................................04BRIEFFACTSOFTHECASE..07CONTENTIONSOFTHEPARTIESANDJUDGMENTOFTHECOURT.08LEGALPROVISIONSINVOLVED.11CONCLUSION....13LEADINGCASESOFPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCTININDIA.....15BIBILOGRAPHY...........19
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
2Createdby:AnchitKhokher
TABLEOFCASES
Cases....PageNo
Bar Council of Maharashtra V. N.V. Dolholkar, AIR 1976 SC 242State (Delhi)..05
Re Tulsidas Amanmal, AIR 1941 Bombay 228.05
V.P. Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1997 SC 1014 05
Administration) v. Pali Ram, 1979(1) SCR 931.08
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju................................................................................................................12
G.Sridher & Anr. v. State of A.P. 2005(2) RCR(Cri.) 116 A.P....13
New Delhi Bar Ass. (Regd.) & Ors. v. National Capital Territory of Delhi Govt. of Delhi, 2004(2) RCR (Cri.) 40 Delhi. ...15
U.O.I. v. Gulshan Bajwa, JT 2003(8) (SC) 440.15
Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. Satish Kumar Ranchhoddas Patel, 2003 Cri.L.J. 3984 Guj. .15
N. Natrajan v. B. K. Subba Rao, 20003 (2) RCR (Cri. ) 424 (SC)15
R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR (Cri) 166 (P&H)..15
Bar Council of A. P. v Kurapati Satyanarayana, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 155: AIR 2003 SC 175.15
Ajay Mehta v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri) 429(Karnataka)15
MCS- Barna v. C.B. Ramanurthy, 2002 (3) RCR (Cri.) 696 (Karnataka).15
Harish Chander Tiwari v. Baiju, 2002 SCC (Cri,) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548..16
Mohd. Khalid v . State of Wst Bangal ,2002 (4) Crimes 160 (SC) 16
Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Ass. Pathankot, Jt 2001 (9) (SC) 480: AIR 2002 SC 41...16
Mathai v. Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge, 1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 1 Kerala 1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 373 (SC)..16
P.K. Sharma v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1999 SC 98..16
Vinay Balchandra Joshi v. Registrar General , supreme Court of India, AIR 1999 SC 107..16
Bapurao khiddey v. Suman doudey, JT 1999 (1) (SC) 273 : AIR 1999 SC 91616Baldev Singh Dhingra v. madan Lal gupta, 1999 SCC (Cri,) 317: AIR 1999 SC 902.16
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
3Createdby:AnchitKhokher
Balbir Singh v.State of Punjab, 1984 cri. L.J. 42116
D.S. Dalal v. State Bank of India, 1993 (2) RRR 116: AIR 1993 SC 1608...16
Giri Raj Parshad Sharma v. Rajasthan Uni. 1987 civil Court Cases 3717
B. M. Verma v. Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission...............................................................................17
Court of Its Own Motion v. State.............................................................................................................17
SC Bar Association v. Union of India......................................................................................................17
Hikmat Ali khan v. Ishwar prasad arya and ors.......................................................................................17
Vinay chandra mishra, in re.....................................................................................................................17
Ex-capt. Harish uppal V. Union of India..................................................................................................17
Rajendra V. Pai Vs. Alex Fernandes and Ors.........................................................................................17
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju................................................................................................................17
Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry......................................................................................18
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
4Createdby:AnchitKhokher
INTRODUCTION
Anadvocateisthemostaccountable,privilegedanderuditepersonofthesocietyandhisact
arerolemodelforthesociety,whicharenecessarytoberegulated.Professionalmisconduct
is the behaviour outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable or worthy of its
membership by the governing body of a profession. Professional misconduct refers to
disgracefulordishonourableconductnotbefittinganadvocate.[1]
Generally the legal profession is not a trade or business, its a gracious, the noble, and
decontaminatedprofessionofthesociety.Membersbelongingtothisprofessionhavenotto
encourage deceitfulness and corruption, but they have to strive to secure justice to their
clients.Thecredibilityand reputationof theprofessiondependsupon themanner inwhich
the members of the profession conduct themselves. Its a symbol of healthy relationship
betweenBarandBench.Thereisheavyresponsibilityonthoseonwhomdutiesarevested
bythevirtueofbeingapartofmymostcredibleasplausibleprofessionofthesociety.
The instant case is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India regarding
ProfessionalMisconductasenvisagedunderSection35ofTheAdvocatesAct,1961.The
casecameuptotheSupremeCourtasanappealU/S.38oftheAdvocatesAct,1961beforea
benchcomprisingofS.C.AgrawalandG.B.Pattanaik,JJ.
InthepresentcasetheappellanthadbeenheldguiltyofseriousProfessionalMisconductby
theBarCouncilofindiauponanenquirythroughitsDisciplinaryCommittee.TheSupreme
Court,onappeal,examinedthesameandcametoaconclusionthattheappellanthadindeed,
violatedthetrustplaceduponhimandcommittedabreachofhisdutyasanadvocate.Hewas
heldguiltyofmisconductundertheAdvocatesAct,1961andpunishedwithreprimand.
Thus the case illustrated a fine point where the judiciary upheld the spirit of law and the
dignityof theLegalprofession.Thiscasewascited in latercasesasaprecedentwhere the
issueofmisappropriationorwrongfulretentionoftheclientsmoneywasinvolvedincases
ofallegedmisconductbytheadvocates.
[1]www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
5Createdby:AnchitKhokher
WHATISPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT?
Misconduct: it is a sufficiently wide expression: it is not necessary that it should involve
moral turpitude.Anyconductwhich inanywayrendersamanunfit for theexerciseofhis
professionorislikelytohamperorembarrasstheadministrationofjusticemaybeconsidered
tobemisconductcallingfordisciplinaryaction.Itcannotbesaidthatanadvocatecannever
bepunishedforprofessionalmisconductcommittedbyhiminhispersonalcapacity.
TheAdvocatesAct,1961aswellIndianBarCouncilaresilentinprovidingexactdefinition
for professionmisconduct because of its scope, though underAdvocateAct, 1961 to take
disciplinary action punishment are prescribed when the credibility and reputation on the
professioncomesunderacloutonaccountofactsofomissionandcommissionanymember
oftheprofession.
Thegeneralmeaningofthewords,professionalorothermisconductsunderSection35of
Advocatesact,1961ismisconductinprofessionalorothercapacity.
ThisconcepthasevolvedfromSection13ofLegalPractitionersAct,1879whichhad
classifiedmisconductofalawyerasfollows:
1. Pleaderwhotakesinstructionsinanycaseexceptfromthepartyonwhombehalfheis
retainedorsomepersonwhoistherecognizedagentofsuchpartyorsomeservantor
relativeorfriendauthorizedbythepartytogivesuchinstructions
2. Pleaderwhoisguiltyoffraudulentorgrosslyimproperconductinthedischargeofhis
professionalduties.
3. Pleaderwhotendersorgivesconsentstotheretentionoutofanyfeeorpayabletohim
forhisservicesofanygratificationforprocuringorhavingprocuredtheemployment
inanylegalbusinessofhimselforanyotherpleader
4. Pleaderwhodirectlyorindirectlyprocuresorattemptstoprocuretheemploymentof
himself or such pleader through or buy intervention of any person to whom an
remuneration for obtaining such employment has been given by him or agreed or
promisedtobesogiven
5. Pleader who accepts any employment or legal business through a person who has
beenproclaimedasatoutundersection36
6. Pleaderwhoisguiltyofanyotherreasonablecause.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
6Createdby:AnchitKhokher
ChapterVoftheAdvocatesAct,1961dealswiththeConductofAdvocates.Sec35deals
with provisions pertaining to Punishment to an Advocate in a case of Professional
misconduct.Subsection1ofSection35providesforthatwhereuponreceiptofacomplaint
orotherwiseaStatebarCouncilhasreasontobelievethatanyadvocateonitsrollhasbeen
guilty of professional or other misconducts, it shall refer the case for disposal to its
DisciplinaryCommittee.
According to Subsection 1A of Section 35, the State Bar Councilmay, either of its own
motionoronapplicationmadetoitbyanypersoninterestedtowithdrawaprecedingpending
beforeitsdisciplinarycommitteeanddirecttheenquirytobemadebyanyotherdisciplinary
committee of state bar council sec 35(2) provides that disciplinary committee of state bar
councilshallfixthedateforhearingofthecase,andshallcauseanoticehereoftobegivento
theadvocateconcernedandAdvocateGeneralofthestate.
Subsec3ofsec35providesthatdisciplinarycommitteeofstatebarcouncilaftergivingthe
advocateconcernedandAdvocateGeneralanopportunityofbeingheard,maymakeany
ofthefollowingorders,namely:
(a) Dismissthecomplaintor,wheretheproceedingswereinitiatedattheinstanceof
theStateBarCouncil,directthattheproceedingsbefiled
(b) Reprimandtheadvocate
(c) Suspendtheadvocatefrompracticeforsuchperiodasitmaydeemedfit
(d) RemovethenameoftheadvocatefromtheStaterollofadvocates.
Sub sec 4 of sec 35 lays down thatWhere an advocate is suspended from practice under
clause(c) of subsection (3) he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from
practicinginanycourtorbeforeanyauthorityorpersoninIndia.
Subsec5ofsec35 laysdownthat5)Whereanynotice is issued to theAdvocateGeneral
undersubsection(2),theAdvocateGeneralmayappearbeforethedisciplinarycommitteeof
theStateBarCouncileitherinpersonorthroughanyadvocateappearingonhisbehalf.
InBarCouncilofMaharashtraV.N.V.Dolholkar,AIR1976SC242,theSupremeCourthas
heldthatonreceiptofcomplaint,thebarcouncilisrequiredtoapplyitsmindtofindoutwhetherthereis any reason to believe that any advocate has been guilty of professional or other
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
7Createdby:AnchitKhokher
misconduct. In thishas, ithasnotbeendone,hence theproceedingbefore thedisciplinarycommittee.[2]
InReTulsidasAmanmal,AIR1941Bombay228, ithasbeenheldbyBombayHighCourt
thatthe term misconduct is a sufficiently wide expression. It is not necessary that it shouldinvolvemoralturpitude.Anyconductwithinanywayrendersamanunfitfortheexerciseofhisprofessionalorislikelytohamperorembarrasstheadministrationofjusticebysuperiorcourtoranyof theothercourtssubordinate thereto,maybeconsidered tobemisconductcallingforthedisciplinaryaction.[3]
The Supreme Court has held in V.P. Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1997 SC
1014,that
grossnegligenceinthedischargeofdutiespartakestheshadesofdelinquencyandwouldundoubtedly amount to professional misconduct. Similarly, a conduct which amounts toderelictionofdutybyanadvocate towardshisclientor towardshiscase,wouldamount toprofessionalmisconduct.Butthenegligencewithoutmoralturpitudeordelinquencymaynotamounttoprofessionalmisconduct,[4]
[2]www.indiankanoon.org/cached/1959104[3]www.legalserviceindia.com[4]www.manupatrainternational.in
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
8Createdby:AnchitKhokher
BRIEFFACTSOFTHECASE
1. ThecasecameupasanappealtotheSupremeCourtunderSection38oftheAdvocates
Act, 1961. Itwas filed by the appellant Prahlad SaranGupta,whowas an advocate
practicing atGhaziabad.The appealwas filed against the judgment of theDisciplinary
CommitteeofBarCouncilofIndia.
2. The Disciplinary Committee had found the appellant guilty of serious professional
misconductandhadimposedthepunishmentofsuspensionfrompracticeforoneyear.
3. TheappellantwasappearingforthedecreeholderinthecaseofM/s.AtmaRamNanak
Chandv.ShriRamContractorintheCourtofCivilJudge,Ghaziabad.
4. Thereafter, the U.P. State Bar Council received a complaint from Rajendra Prasad, a
partner of the firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand wherein he made a number of
allegationsagainsttheappellant.
5. TheappellantfiledareplytotheStateBarCouncilanddeniedallsuchallegations.
6. TheStateBarCouncilthereuponreferredthecasetooneofitsDisciplinaryCommittees
butthesaidCommitteecouldnotcompletetheproceedingsintheprescribedtimeofone
year and, therefore, theproceedingswere transferred to theBarCouncilof Indiaunder
Section 36b of the Act and thereafter the Disciplinary Committee dealt with the
proceedings.
7. The Disciplinary Committee has, however, found the appellant guilty of gross
professionalmisconductonthebasisofitsfindings.
8. ThusthepresentappealwasfiledunderSection38oftheAdvocatesAct,1961beforethe
SupremeCourt.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
9Createdby:AnchitKhokher
CONTENTIONSOFTHEPARTIESANDJUDGMENT
OFTHECOURT
The appellant denied having committed any Misconduct, professional or otherwise. He
challengedtheDisciplinaryCommitteesfindingsonvariouscounts.
1. DisciplinaryCommitteehadheld theappellantguiltyofprofessionalmisconducton
thebasisofthechargerelatingtonoticeunderSection80C.P.C.havingbeendrafted
bytheappellant.Itwasallegedthatsincetheappellantwashimselfastandingcounsel
fortheRailways,heshouldnthavedraftedanoticeagainstthesame.
2. ShriR.B.Mehrotra,thelearnedseniorcounselappearingfortheappellantsubmitted
thattheDisciplinaryCommitteehaderredinitsfinding.Theappellantsubmittedthat
thesaidchargewasnotcontainedinthecomplaintfiledbythecomplainantandwas
put forward for the first time before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar
Councilbythecomplainantinhisapplication.
3. Furthermore, andmore importantly, the request of the appellant for examination of
thehandwritinginthedraftofthenoticebyanexperttoshowthatthesaiddraftofthe
noticewas not in the handwriting of the appellantwas rejected by theDisciplinary
Committee.Thus,theDisciplinaryCommitteewasinerrorinholding,onthebasisof
a comparison by itself of the admitted handwriting of the appellant with the
handwritingin,thatthesamewaswrittenbytheappellant.
4. TheCourtheld thatdespitehavingmadea request to theDisciplinaryCommittee
forexpertexaminationofhandwriting inorder tocomparehishandwritingwith the
oneintheNotice,theDisciplinaryCommitteerejectedtherequestandarrivedatsuch
conclusiononitsown,throughitsowncomparison.
5. Such rejection of the request was done by the Disciplinary Committee citing the
reasonthatnousefulpurposewouldbeservedbecause theallegationrelatingto the
saiddocumentwasnotcontainedoriginallyinthecomplaint.TheCourtruledthatThus, having rejected the request for sending the said document to a handwritingexpert forexaminationontheviewthat thesaidallegationwasnotcontained in thecomplaintasoriginallyfiled,theDisciplinaryCommitteewasinerroringoingintothemerits of the said allegation and furthermore in comparing the writing in the saiddocumentwiththehandwritingoftheappellantwithouttheassistanceoftheopinion
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
10Createdby:AnchitKhokher
ofahandwritingexpertandincomingtotheconclusionthatthesaiddocumentwasinthehandwritingoftheappellant.
6. The court also made a reference to the judgment in the case of State (Delhi
Administration)v.PaliRam,1979(1)SCR931[5],whereinitwasheldbytheHonble
SupremeCourtthatalthough there is no legal bar on the examination of handwriting by a judge, heshould,asamatterofprudenceandcaution,hesitatetobasehisfindingwithregardtotheidentityofahandwritingwhichformsthesheetanchoroftheprosecutioncaseagainstapersonaccusedofanoffencesolelyoncomparisonmadebyhimself.Itis,therefore,notadvisablethataJudgeshouldtakeuponhimselfthetaskofcomparingtheadmittedwritingwiththedisputedonetofindoutwhetherthetwoagreewitheachotherandtheprudentcourseistoobtaintheopinionandassistanceofanexpert.''[P.944]
7. Thecourttherefore,ruledagainstthefindingoftheDisciplinaryCommitteethatthe
appellantwasguiltyof seriousprofessionalmisconductdue tohimhavingprepared
thedraftNoticeU/S.80C.P.C.whichwasserved to theRailways.Thecourtstated
that, this offence was of quasicriminal nature and hence, required proof beyond
reasonabledoubt,whichcouldonlyhavebeenestablishedthroughtheaidofanexpert
inordertocomparethehandwriting.
8. TheCourt further rejected thebarCouncils finding that theappellantwasguiltyof
misconductwithregardtothelettersent toShriV.K.Gupta.Thecourtheldthatno
reliancecouldbeplacedontheevidenceofShriRamthat theappellanthadhanded
overthatletter(addressedtoShriV.K.Gupta,Advocate,atAllahabad)toShriRam
for the purpose of his obtaining stay of execution proceedings from theAllahabad
HighCourt,inwhichtheappellantwasengagedonbehalfoftheDecreeholder.
9. The only count on which the Court did find the appellant guilty of Professional
Misconductwas regarding thewithholding of themoney due to theDecree holder.
The appellantwrongfully retainedRs. 1,500/with himself,whichwere due to the
decreeholder.
10. Theappellantclaimedthatthatthesaidsumwasplacedwithhimbyboththeparties,
namely, ShriNanakChand, partner of firmM/s.AtmaRamNanakChand (decree
holder),andShriRam(judgmentdebtor)inconnectionwithasettlementwhichwas
beingnegotiatedbetweenthem,andthattheappellantrefusedtopaythesaidmoney
[5]AIR1979SC14:SCR931
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
11Createdby:AnchitKhokher
tothedecreeholder,forthereasonthatitcouldbepaidonlyifajointreceiptofboth
thepartieswashandedovertohim.
11. ThiswasrejectedbytheSupremeCourt.Evenwhensuchproposedsettlementdidnot
fructify, the appellant did not return the amount ofRs. 1,500/ either to the decree
holder or to the judgment debtor and continued to retain the samewith him till he
depositeditinthecourtonMay2,1978.
12. TheCourtfurtherobservedthattheordersheetoftheexecutioncaseshowsthatthe
proceedingshadterminatedonApril4,1978,whereas,theamountwasreturnedonly
onMay2,1978whenhedepositeditinthecourt.
13. The Court held that this was not in consonance with the standards of professional
ethicsexpectedfromaseniormemberoftheprofessionandamountedtoProfessional
MisconductforhishavingwrongfullyretainedRs.1,500/whichhadbeenkeptwith
himinconnectionwiththesettlementintheexecutionproceedings.
14. TheCourtfurtherorderedapunishmentofreprimandtobeimposedontheappellant
forthesaidmisconductonhispart.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
12Createdby:AnchitKhokher
LEGALPROVISIONSINVOLVED
THEADVOCATESACT,1961
CHAPTERV:SEC35
PUNISHMENTOFADVOCATESFORMISCONDUCT
(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to
believethatanyadvocateitsrollhasbeenguiltyofprofessionalorothermisconduct,
itshallreferthecasefordisposaltoitsdisciplinarycommittee.
[(1A)TheStateBarCouncilmay,eitherofitsownmotionoronapplicationmadeto
it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding pending before its disciplinary
committeemiddirecttheinquirytobemadebyanyotherdisciplinarycommitteeof
thatStateBarCouncil]
(2) ThedisciplinarycommitteeofaStateCouncilshallfixadatefor thehearingof the
caseandshallcauseanoticethereoftobegiventotheadvocateconcernedandtothe
AdvocateGeneraloftheState.
(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate
concernedandtheAdvocateGeneralanopportunityofbeingheard,maymakeanyof
thefollowingorders,namely:
(a) Dismissthecomplaintor,wheretheproceedingswereinitiatedattheinstance
oftheStateBarCouncil,directthattheproceedingsbefiled
(b) Reprimandtheadvocate
(c) Suspendtheadvocatefrompracticeforsuchperiodasitmaydeemedfit
(d) RemovethenameoftheadvocatefromtheStaterollofadvocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended frompracticeunder clause(c) of subsection (3) he
shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from practicing in any court or
beforeanyauthorityorpersoninIndia.
(5) Where any notice is issued to the AdvocateGeneral under subsection (2), the
AdvocateGeneral may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar
Councileitherinpersonorthroughanyadvocateappearingonhisbehalf.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
13Createdby:AnchitKhokher
2[Explanation.Inthissection1[Section37andSection38]theexpressionAdvocateGeneral'
and'AdvocateGeneraloftheState'shall,inrelationtotheUnionterritoryofDelhi,meanthe
AdditionalSolicitorGeneralofIndia].
1.OmittedbyActNo.107of19762.Ins.byActno.21of1964.
CHAPTERV:SEC38
APPEALTOTHESUPREMECOURT
Anypersonaggrievedbyanordermadeby'thedisciplinarycommitteeoftheBarCouncilof
IndiaunderSection36orSection371[ortheAttorneyGeneralofIndiaortheAdvocate
GeneraloftheStateconcernedasthecasemaybe],withinsixtydaysofthedateonwhichthe
orderiscommunicatedtohim,preferanappealtotheSupremeCourtandtheSupremeCourt
maypasssuchorder1[includinganordervaryingthepunishmentawardedbythedisciplinary
committeeoftheBarCouncilofIndia]thereonasitdeemsfit:
1[ProvidedthatnoorderofthedisciplinarycommitteeoftheBarCouncilofIndiashallbe
variedbytheSupremeCourtsoastoprejudiciallyaffectthepersonaggrievedwithoutgiving
himareasonableopportunityofbeingheard.]
1.Ins.byActNo.60of1973.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
14Createdby:AnchitKhokher
CONCLUSION
Theroleofthelawyersinthesocietyisofgreatimportance.Theybeingpartofthesystemof
deliveringjustice,holdgreatreverenceandrespectinthesociety.Eachindividualhasawell
definedcodeof conductwhichneeds tobe followedby theperson living in the society.A
lawyer, in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to his
opponent,adutytothecourt,adutytothesocietyatlargeandadutytohimself[6].Itneeds
a high degree of probity and poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous
stand,moreso,whenthereareconflictingclaims.
While discharging duty to the court, a lawyer should never knowingly be a party to any
deception,designorfraud.Whileplacingthelawbeforethecourtalawyerisatlibertytoput
forthapropositionandcanvassthesametothebestofhiswitsandabilitysoastopersuade
anexpositionwhichwouldservetheinterestofhisclientandthesociety.
In the instant case, theHonbleSupremeCourt of India examined in detail the charges of
professionalmisconductlevelledagainsttheappellant.Hewasfoundtohavebeenguiltyof
thesameashewrongfullywithheldandretainedtheamountsduetotheDecreeholderwith
himselfanddelayedpayingitinspiteofdemands.
Thus, he breached his position of trust which the client had placed on him. This form of
conduct is not worthy of an advocate and hence, the Court ordered that the penalty of
reprimand be imposed upon him. Therefore the appeal was partly allowed. While the
appellantwasexoneratedonothercountsmentioned in thecomplaint regardinghisalleged
misconduct, he was at the same time, held guilty on just one of them, being wrongfully
withholdingthedecreeholdersmoney.
Eveninlatercases,theSupremeCourthasviewedsuchretentionoftheclientsmoneytobe
thegravest form ofmisconduct. In the case ofHarishChandraTiwari v. Baiju [7], the
courtheldthatamongthedifferenttypesofmisconductenvisagedforalegalpractitioner,misappropriationoftheclientsmoneymustberegardedasoneofthegravest.Inthis
[6]www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct[7]2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
15Createdby:AnchitKhokher
professional capacity the legal practitioner has to collect money from the client towardsexpenses of the litigation, or withdrawmoney from the court payable to the client or takemoneyoftheclienttobedepositedincourt.Inallsuchcases,whenthemoneyoftheclientreaches his hand it is a trust. If a public servantmisappropriatesmoney he is liable to bepunishedunderthepresentPreventionofCorruptionAct,with imprisonmentwhichshallnotbe less than one year. He is certain to be dismissed from service. But if an advocatemisappropriatesmoneyoftheclientthereisnojustificationindeescalatingthegravityofthemisdemeanour. Perhaps the dimension of the gravity of such breach of trust would bemitigated when themisappropriation remained only for a temporary period. Theremay bejustificationtoawardalesserpunishmentinacasewherethedelinquentadvocatereturnedthemoneybeforecommencingthedisciplinaryproceedings.
Thusthestrictestmeasuresneedtobeundertakentopreventandpunishsuchinstancesfrom
takingplaceandbreaching thehealthyatmosphere requiredby the legal system to flourish
smoothlywithmutualtrust.
The legalprofession is a solemnand seriousoccupation. It is anoblecallingandall those
whobelongtoitareitshonorablemembers.Althoughtheentrytotheprofessioncanbehad
acquiringmerelythequalificationoftechnicalcompetence,thehonorasaprofessionalhasto
bemaintainedbyitsmembers,bytheirexemplaryconductbothinandoutsidethecourt.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
16Createdby:AnchitKhokher
LEADINGCASESOFPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCTININDIA
1. Nonappearanceofthecounselinthecaseisprofessionalmisconduct.Forwithdrawalnotice to theclientbegiven.G.Sridher&Anr.v.StateofA.P.2005(2)RCR(Cri.)116A.P.
2. Falseaffidavitbydeponentclientregardingtheage.Theadvocatehasnoresponsibility.NewDelhiBarAss.(Regd.)&Ors.v.NationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiGovt.ofDelhi,2004(2)RCR(Cri.)40Delhi.
3. AdvocatesActStatecanappointmorethanoneaddl.AdvocateGeneralsofitschoice.Thisappointmentisnotconstitutional,ratheritisexecutive.M.T.Khanv.Govt.ofA.P.,JT2004(1)(SC)146:AIR2004SC2934
4. AllegationsbytheadvocateagainsttheJudgesinReviewpetitionafterdismissalofSLP,matterreferredtotheBarCounselofIndiafornecessaryaction.U.O.I.v.GulshanBajwa,JT2003(8)(SC)440.
5. DutyofadvocateOneshouldnotreferajudgmentalreadyoverruledandthatthereisnoother judgment by larger bench.Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. Satish KumarRanchhoddasPatel,2003Cri.L.J.3984Guj.
6. Referringwrong arguments or Changing stand at different stages of proceedings is nooffence covering the application of s. 195 Cr. P.C.N. Natrajan v. B. K. Subba Rao,20003(2)RCR(Cri.)424(SC):AIR2003SC541:2003Cri.L.J.820.ReviewOrderalreadypassedbytheBarCouncilcanbereviewedevenafter60days.Licencecancelledisrestored.JT2003(4)(SC)435.B
7. An advocate is an officer of theCourt and legal profession is not a trade or business,ratheritisanofficerofthecourtandlegalprofessionisnotatradeorbusinessratheritisanobleprofessionandadvocateshave tostrive tosecure justice for theirclientswithinlegally permissible limits.R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR(Cri)166(P&H).
8. StateBarcouncilhasquasijudicialpoweranditalsoperformtheroleoftheprosecutorandhence,iscompetenttofileappealbeingaggrievedpersonagainstthejudgmentoftheBarcouncilof India.BarCouncilofA.P.vKurapatiSatyanarayana,2003SCC(Cri.)155:AIR2003SC175.
9. S. 303Cr. P.CMemo of appearance is sufficient in criminal case.Vakalatname is notnecessary like the civil case.Ajay Mehta v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri)429(Karnataka).
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
17Createdby:AnchitKhokher
10. Advocate cannot argue his own case as an advocate but he can argue his case whileappearing inpersonasgeneralpublic.MCSBarnav.C.B.Ramanurthy,2002 (3)RCR(Cri.)696(Karnataka).
11. Rs. 8118 received by the counsel on behalf of his client and kept with him. Thenproduced forgeddocuments to establish thathehaspaid theamount.Licencecancelledpermanently.HarishChanderTiwariv.Baiju,2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548.
12. AdvocatesActUndue adjournments of the case is an abuse of the process and also amisconduct.Mohd.Khalidv.StateofWstBangal,2002(4)Crimes160(SC).
13. ProfessionalMisconductRunningofSTD/Photocopierinthenameofadvocate.Licensecancelledfor5year.BhupinderKumarSharmav.BarAss.Pathankot,Jt2001(9)(SC)480:AIR2002SC41.
14. Third person an on advocate can represent a party without being general power ofattorneyofthepartywiththepriorpermissionoftheCourtwhichhastobeobtainedbythepartyandnotbythethirdperson.Mathaiv.PrincipalDistt.&SessionsJudge,1999(2)RCR(Cri.)1Kerala1999(2)RCR(Cri.)373(SC).
15. Merelyownershipoftaxiinhisnameofanadvocateisnotsufficientwithouthispersonalengagementinbusiness.P.K.Sharmav.GurdialSingh,AIR1999SC98.
16. Supreme Court Rules for the allotment of the chambers of the advocates, VinayBalchandraJoshiv.RegistrarGeneral,supremeCourtofIndia,AIR1999SC107.
17. The disciplinary committee cannot dealt with the matter of an Advocate who wastreasurerofsomesocietyandtheallegationwasofnoaccounting.Bapuraokhiddeyv.Sumandoudey,JT1999(1)(SC)273:AIR1999SC916.
18. AdvocatesActwillnotbeapplicableonanadvocateduringtheperiodofthesuspensionof his licence .BaldevSinghDhingra v.madanLal gupta, 1999SCC (Cri,) 317:AIR1999SC902
19. The accused who is an advocate can represent his coaccused in the capacity of theadvocateinacriminalcasetillthelicenceoftheaccusedadvocateisinexistence2(1997)CCR536:AIR1980Orissa143.
20. ActiontakenbythedisciplinarycommitteeoftheBarCouncilofIndiaistobechallengedinSupremecourtU/S.38of theAdvocateActandorder5of theSupremeCourtrules,1966.1997(2)supreme294.
21. Identificationofapersonbyanadvocateofapersoningoodfaithwithoutanypersonalbenefit is nooffenceunder the IndianPenal code .Mensrea is amust.BalbirSinghv.StateofPunjab,1994(3)RCR486(P&H):1994CCCase231:1994(2)CCI749:1995(1)CCCase97HC.BalbirSinghv.StateofPunjab,1984cri.L.J.421.
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
18Createdby:AnchitKhokher
22. Feeschargedbytheadvocatebutsuitnotfield.Itamountstomisappropriationofamount.D.S.Dalalv.StateBankofIndia,1993(2)RRR116:AIR1993SC1608.
23. MisconductAppearanceofanothercounselinthecasewithoutobtainingthepermissionofthecounselalreadyengagedbytheclient.itismisconductonthepartortheadvocateappearingafresh.GiriRajParshadSharmav.RajasthanUni.1987civilCourtCases37.
24. ContemptOfCourtAsMisconduct B.M.Vermav.UttrakhandRegulatoryCommission[8]courtnotedthat,itwasgiven
thewidepowersavailablewithaCourtexercisingcontemptjurisdiction,courtquotedseveralheDelhiHC,
CourtofItsOwnMotionv.State[9],giventhewidepowersavailablewithaCourtexercisingcontemptjurisdiction,itcannotaffordtobehypersensitiveandtherefore,atrivialmisdemeanorwouldnotwarrantcontemptaction.
SCBarAssociationv.UnionofIndia[10]Circumspectionisallthemorenecessary,theCourtisineffectthejury,thejudgeandthehangman
M.R.ParasharH.L.SehgalitwasobservedthattheCourtisalsoaprosecutor.
25. AttemptOfMurderHikmatAlikhanv.Ishwarprasadaryaandors[11],AttemptingtocommitmurderpunishableunderSection307,IPC.Thegravityofthemisconductcommittedshowsthatheisunworthyofremainingintheprofession.Themisconduct,calledfortheimpositionofthepunishmentofremovalofthenameofrespondentfromtheStaterollunderSection35oftheAdvocateAct.
26. MisbehaviourAsMisconductVinaychandramishra,inre[10]factssenioradvocateshout&insultthejudgeSohewassentencedtosimpleimprisonmentforaperiodofsixweeksandheshallstandsuspendedfrompractisingasanadvocateforaperiodofthreeyears.
27. StrikeAsMisconductExcapt.HarishuppalV.UnionofIndia[11]Whetherthelawyershavearighttostrike?CourtcannotpenaliseanyAdvocateforthismisconductasthepowertodisciplineisnowexclusivelywiththeBarCouncils.
28. SolicitationOfProfessionalWorkRajendraV.PaiVs.AlexFernandesandOrs.[12]Theappellantshouldnothaveindulgedintoprosecutingordefendingalitigationinwhichhehadapersonalinterestinviewofhisfamilypropertybeinginvolved.
29. BreachOfTrustByMisappropriatingTheAssetOfClientHarishChandraTiwariv.Baiju[13]Courtheldthatamongthedifferenttypesofmisconductenvisagedforalegalpractitionermisappropriationoftheclientsmoneymustberegardedasoneofthegravest.
[8]AppealNo.156of2007[9]151(2008)DLT695(Del.,DB)[10](1998)4SCC409[11][1997]RDSC87[12]AIR2002SC1808[13]2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
19Createdby:AnchitKhokher
30. InformingAboutBribe:MisconductShambhuRamYadavv.HanumanDasKhatry,[14]Nameshouldbestruckofffrom,therollofadvocatesmaintainedbytheBarCouncilofRajasthan.CourtimposeacostofRs.5,000/.
[14](2001)6SCC1.165
UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
20Createdby:AnchitKhokher
BIBLOGRAPHY
PrassadAnirudh,PrinciplesoftheethicsoflegalprofessioninIndia:
accountancyforlawyersandbenchbarrelationsincludingcontemptof
court,JaipurUniversityBookHouse,2004.
Rai.K.,Historyofcourts,legislature&legalprofessioninIndia,
Faridabad:AllahabadLawAgency,1985.
www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
www.indiankanoon.org/cached/1959104
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.manupatrainternational.in
AIR1979SC14:SCR931
www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
AppealNo.156of2007
151(2008)DLT695(Del.,DB)
(1998)4SCC409
[1997]RDSC87
AIR2002SC1808
2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
(2001)6SCC1.165