T ffi (Prevention) Act, 1956, unless in

. . . t 1955, and the Immoral ra ic

Protection of C1v1l Rights Ac ' sut~ ~
- \
aid is sought by the vict~ service advocate shall be paid
such h
· Advocates - The 1ega1 · d · 01\\\t
Honorarium Payable to legal Service . advocate to whom any is ass1gne either for legal ~ .
as may be fixed by the commi·ttee. No legal service t· n whether in · k. d f ¾
~:::_::.;;;
or for legal .;2~ :i"f~ ~-~ any fee or remunera cash or m m o an other adv \ -
services shall receive fr 10 y other person on h.1s b ehaIf. ali\~
The legal
.
monetary or otherwise, from the aided Person or om, b
an
·t statem
. . selvi
. · ent shall su ent' showm g the honoranum due t \
advocate who has completed his assignm mi a
fth committee who shall, after due security~ o \y
f
together with the report o wor k dOne to the secreta ry o e '
f d. te on the quantum payable to the legal serv· ct1\\li
the fee and expenses payable to him. In case O any ispud . .
~ e
advocate, the matter shall be place d befiore the chairman for ec1s1on .
MODULE III - ETHICS AND LEGAL PROFESSION
. . h ' ·· g
Professional Ethics refers to a collection of gu1delmes t at an asprrm lawyer .must .
adhere to. These guideline8
. .h h
• ·
govern the behavior and actions of practtcmg 1awyers, encomp assing their mteractions wit t ernselves
. . -. ., ,
clients, opposing parties and ~he court. Ethics generally pertains to the
moral pnnci ples that _should serve :ls
· a1Eth'1cs serves s a foundation for any profession, embodymg
standards for a lawyer's conduct. Pro fiess1on a -_
the fundamental values upon which the legal profession is constru~ted.
Several core principles form the foundation of professional ethic~ in law
in India. Confidentiality and attorney-
client privil~ge are fundamental, ensuring clients can 8
Competence and diligent representation require lawyers to maintain
their law er ·th sensitive information.
a i h standard of knowledge and sk to
serve their clients effectively. Avoiding conflicts of interest is crucial
to safe ar t ,__ _ o t e legal
process. Honesty and truthfulness are essential for maintaining
the cr:.~dibility of lawyers. Professional
courtesy and respect promote a~ealthy and dignified worg environment
. Pro Bono service and access to justice
highlight th~ sponsibilii_ip f lawyers to provide legal assistance to
those in need.
Stand ards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette
Advocates, in addition t0 being professionals, are also officers of
the courts and play a vital role in the
administration of justice. An advocate shall, at all time~ compose himse
lf in a II)ariner befitting his status as
an advocate, an officer of the court. a privileged member of
the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind
that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a memb
er of the Bai: may still improper for an
advocate. Rules on the pr~fessiona_l standards that an advocate needs
to maintain are mentioned "\ Chapter II,
\Part-VI of the Bar Counctl of India RuieJ These rules are framed
unde\ Section 49(1 )(c~ f the Advocates
Act, 1961.
._
Section-I -Duty towards the{couii}(Rule 1-10)
(J) Act in a dignified manner: During the presentation of his case
and also while acting •before a court, an
advocate should act in a dignified manner. He should at all times
conduct himself with self-respect.
However, whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint
against a judicial officer, the advocate
has a right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.
(l) Respect the court: An advocate should always show respect toward
s the court. An advocate has to bear in
mind that the dignity illld respect maintained towards judicial office
is essential for the survival of a free
community.
CZ) Not communicate in private: An advocate shoul~ not communicate in private to a judge with regard
to any
matter pending before the judge or any other judge. An advocate
should not influence the decision of a
court in any matter using illegal or improper means such as coercio
n, bribe etc.

2jPa ge
G) Refuse to act in an illegal ~nanner towards the opposition: An advocate should refuse to act ,in ~n illegal
or improl)er mam1er towards the opposing counsel or the opposing parties. He shall also use his best efforts
to r~strain and prevent his client from acting in any ill impro per manner or use unfair practices in ~ny
mater towards the judiciary, opposing counsel or the opposin2 parties. An advocate shall refuse to represent
any c\ient wjlo insists on using unfair or improper means. An advocate shall excise his own judgment in
such matters. He shall not blindly follow the instructions of the client. He shall be dignified in use of his
language in correspondence and during arguments in court. He shall not scandalously damage the
. reputation of the parties on false grounds during pleading. He shall not use unparliamentarily language
durmg arguments in the court.
(v Appear in proP_er dress code: An advocate should appear in court at all ~imes only in the dress prescribed
under the Bar Council oflndia Rules and his appearance should always be presentable.
@ Refuse to appear in front of relations: An advocate should not enter appearance, act, plead or practice in
any way before a judicial authority if the so le or any member of the bench is related to the advocate as
father, grandfather, son, grandson, uncle, brother ne hew first cousin, husband wife, mother, daughter,
si ster, aunt, mece, ather-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law,' brother-in-law, daughter-in-law or sister-in-
law · -
CZ) Not to wear bands or gowns in public places: An advocate should not wear bands ~r gowns in public
pla~es 0ther than in courts except on such ceremonial occasions and at such places as the Bar Council of
India or as the court may prescribe. ·
Ci) f! 0
~ ~epresent e~tablishmen~s of which he is a member: An advocate should not appear in or before any

Judici~l authonty,_ for or against any establishment if he is a member of the management of the
establishment. This rule does not app!Xto a ~mber appearing as "amicus curiae" or with whom a fee on
behalf of the Bar Council Incorporated Law Society or a Bar Association.
© Not appear i~ m_atters ofpec~niary interest: An advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which
he has financial mterests. For mstance, he should not act in a bankruptcy petition when he is also a credi;,r
a
of the bankrupt. He sl.J2.uld also not accept a brief from a company of which ~ is director.
@ Not st~nd _as surety(or client: An advocate should QQt stand as a surety, or certify the soundness of a surety
that his client requrres for the purpose of any legal proceedings. ·

Section-II -Duty Towards the Client (Rules 11-33) .

@ Bound lo accept briefs: An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the courts or tribunals or before any
other authority in or before which he proposes to practise. He should levy fees which is at par with the
fees collected by fellow advocates of his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special
circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief ·
@ Not withdraw from service: An advocate should not ordinarily withdraw from serving a client once he has
agreed to serve them. He can withdraw only if he has a ·sufficient cause and by giving reasonable and
sufficient notice to the client. Upon withdrawal, he shall refund such part of the fee· that has not accrued
to the client.
@Yot appear in matters where he himself is a witness: An advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a
case in which he himself is a witness. If he has a reason to believe that in due course of events, he .will be
a witness, then he should not continue to appear for the client. He should retire from the case without
jeopardizing his client's interests.
@ Full and frank disclosure to client: An advocate should, at the c~mmencement_ of ~is ~ngag: ment ~ d
during the continuance thereof make all such full and frank disclosure to his client relatmg to his
connection with the parties and any interest in or about the controversy as are likely to affect his client's
judgement in either engaging him or continuing the engagement.

31Pa ge
 @ uphold interest of the h d t of
client: It shall be t e u yd an advocate fearlessly to u hold the int s
. ll t t hall do so without
chent by a arr. an d honorable means An a voca e s re ard to a er~\ ~o/
H. h II defend a
consequences to him . self or an ot e ·. e
sa
person accused of a cri n %
me re arcti \~ \:. ~
.
guilt of the accused. An advocate should always remember that his loess ~
personal opinion as to the
the \aw which re uires · ~11 1~
that no man should be .d Yalty
(Fi ' un ish ed without ade uate ev~ en •
~ Not supp .
ress material or evide . d t ce. . . \
conduct the proceeding~ nce: An a voca e appe aring for the 2rosecutton of a cnmm
in a manner that it does . . . h . al tri 1
not lead to conv1ct10n_ of ~ ¼
by no means suppress an · ·d t e mnocent. An advoca
matenal or ev1 ence. w h' h shall prove the innocen te sha\1
Q .Not disclose the communy ica tions between client and
1c ce of the accused
himself' An advocate sh ~·
directly or indirectly, dis ould not by any means
close the communicatio
the ad\jce given by him ns made by his client to
in the proceedings Howe him: ~e ~lso shall not
ver, .he is liable to disclo disclos~
the Indian Evidence Act, se if it vmlates Section
1872. l~ f
@) An advocate should not ·
be a party to stir up or ins
tigate litigation: An a~vo
a party to fomenting of liti cate shall not, at any tim
gation. e, be
@ )An advocate should
not act on the instructions
ofany person other than
agent. his client or the client's au
thorJied
(!j) Not charge depending on succ.e .
ss of matters: An advocate
the success of the matter should not charge for his
undertaken. He also shall services depending on
or property received after not charge for hi~ services
the success of the matter as a pe rce ntage ofthe amount
@ Not receive interest
in actionable claim : An
interest in any actionable advocate should not trade
claim Nothing in this rul or agree to receive any
e shall apply to stock, share or
government _securities, or sh are s and
to any instruments, which debentures of
or to any mercantile docu are, for the time being, by
ment of title to goods. law or custom, negotiable
@ Not bid purchase propert
y_arising of legal proceedin
·
·
purchase, eithe~ in his ow g: An advocate should no
n name or in any other na t by any means bid for, or
pe~son, any property so me, for his own b~nefit or
ld in any legal proceeding for the benefit of any other
However, it does not pre in which he was in any wa
vent an advocate from bid y professionally engaged.
behalf of the client provid ding for or purchasing for
ed the Advocate is expressl his client any property on
@ Not bid or transfer propert
y arising of legal proceedin
y authorized in writing in
thi s behalf
court auction or acquire g: An advocate should no -
by way of sale, gift. exch t by any means bid in
name or in any other name ange or any other mode of
for his own benefit or for transfer (either in h i~
is the subject matter of the benefit of any other pe
any suit .appeal ar other rson) , any property which
q~ proceedings in which he
is in any.way professio
@ Not adjust fees ag nally
ainst pe:so~~l /iabi/ity:_ An -
against his own personal adv?cate should n?t ~djus
liability to the client, which t fee payable_to him by his
does not anse Ill the cours client
advocate. e of his employment as an
(} I)An advocate should _
not misuse or takes adva
advocate shall not do anyth ntage of the confidence rep
ing whereby he abuses or osed in him by his ~lie~t:
tak es adva An
his client. ntage of the confidence reposed
~ Keep proper accoun m htm by
ts: An advocate should alw
L / The accounts should sho ays keep.ac~ounts of t~e cli
ents' money entrusted to him
w the amounts received fro
along with the expenses inc m the client or on his beha
urred for him and the dedu . The account should show
and all other necessary pa ctions made on account of
fees with respective dates
@ • fi rticulars.
Divert money rom accoun t . An advocate should me
s. ntion in his accounts wheth
by him from the cIient are ~ees or ex er any morue. s receiv .
ed
on account Of 1 pense s during the course of any . .
roceedm or o tru.on.
1

41 Pa ge
._
0 ·
tJ\
0

~~~ He sha\l not diver:t an part of the amounts received for expenses as fees w thout written instruction from
:/~~
\~ the client.
@ ntimate the client on amounts: Where any amount is received or given to hi on behalf of his client, the
advocate must without any delay intimate the client of the fact of such receipt.
'{ii)Adjust fees ffter termination of proceedings: After the te~ination of the p~c~eding, the advocate shall
. be at liberty to appropriate towards the settled fee due to him, any sum remammg unexpended out of the
amount paid or sent to him for expenses or any amount that has come into his hands in that proceeding.
{fi)E;:(cit/ement to deduct moneyJor unsettled}ee: W4ere the fee has been left unsettled, the advocate shall be
entitled to deduct, out of any moneys of the client remaining in his hands, at the termination of the
proceeding for which he had been engaged, the fee payable under the rules of the Court, in force for the
time being, or by then settled and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the client.
(f§J Provide copy of accounts: An advocate must provide the client with the copy of the client's account
. maintain~d by him on demand, provided that the necessary copying charge is paid.
@ An advocate shall not enter into arrangements whereby funds in his hands are'(onverted into loans]
(!}- Not lend money to his client: An advocate shall not lend money to his client for the purpose of any action
or le~al proceedings in which he is engaged by such client. An advocate cannot be held guilty for a breach
?f thi s rule, if in the course of a pending suit or proceeding, and without any arrangement with the client
. m respect of the same, the advocate feels compelled by reason of the rule of the Court to make a a ent
12\ to the Court on account of the client for the progress of the sutt or procee mg. -
~ Not ap'!ear for opposite parties: An advocate wh<? has advised a party in connection with the institution
of a smt, appeal or other matter or has drawn pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead
for the opposite party in the same matter.

Section-3 Duty to Opponents (Rules 34-35) .

(!!; Not to negotiate directly with opposing party: An advocate subject matter not in any way communicate or
· negotiate or call for settlement upon the controversy with any party represented by an advocate except
· through the advocate repainting the parties.
@ Carry out legitimate promises made: An advocate shall not in any way communicate or negotiate upon the
subject matter of controversy with any party represented by an advocate except through that advocate. An
advocate shall do his best to carry out all legitimate promises made to the·opposite party even though not
reduced to writing or enforceable under the rules of the Court. -
In addition to the above duties prescribed by the Bar Council oflndia an Advocate is expected to perform the
following duties also to the client.
· ~He shall give advice to his client honestly and in good faith.
J -He sball prepare the case with due care and skill.
~ e shall submit all relevant documents before the court in support of the claim of his client. .
· / He should attend the court on every day fixed for hearing of his ~lient's case ·
.1/ He should return the whole fees received from his client, if he is not in a position to conduct the tase.

Section-4 Duty Towards Colleagues (Rules 36-39)

(!J. Not to advertise or solicit work: An advoca~e shall not solicit work or adv~rtis_e in any ~anne~. He shall
not promote himself by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal commumcatlons, and mtemews other
· than through personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his phot~fr~phs
to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned. A~ advocates sign-
board or name-plate should be of a reasonable size. The sign-board or name plate or stationery should not
indicate that he is or has been President or Member of a Bar Council or of any Association or that he has
__ -~~en associated with any person_or_organization of with any particular cause or matter or that he specializes
SI Page
(,
I
·I
.,Y~
.f
!\
. l
in any part1cu ar type Of work or that he has been a u
J dge or an Advocate Gen eral That this Rule .
. \ ~ l.
c
jci.-~
b . t
j
. . infor matio n as rescr
. h f dvocates fum1shmg we s1 e ibed m the Schedu\ • " ~-
stand m t e way O a C . e u,.
. . . d proved by the Bar ounc1 1o f India Any addit ional other input in the Parr"
mhmat1on to an asap · -
. d.
than approved by the Bar Council ofln ia w1 e ·11 b d emed to be viola tion of Rule 36 and such advo
ic11\
e . .
.
are liable to be proceeded with misconduct un a·er sec ton 1 35 of the Advocates c ,
A t 1961
.
ca\\
. . . •
37. Not promote unau · thori. . if l . An advo cate shall not perm
.
zed practice o aw. . it his profess10n al services ofh·
name to be used for promotin startin an · unauthori 1~
zed ractice of law b an 1aw a enc · . .
38. An advacatesha[[ not accep t a r.ee less than the ':er. 0. , which can be taxed under rules when the client zs able
1
_
Jo pay more. .
· 39. Consent of fellow advocate to appear: An advo . '
cate should not appear m any matter where anoth
advocate has filed a Vakalatnama or memo for the same er
· party. However, the advocate can take the consent
of the otl~er advocate for appearing. In case, an advocate
is not able to present the consent of the advocate
who has filed the matter for the same party, then he
should apply to the court for appearance. He shall
such application m~ntion the reason as to why he could in
not obtain such consent. He shall appear only after
obtaining the permission of the Court.
Duty to render Legal Aid (Rule 46)
.46. Every advocate shall in the practice of the.profes .
sion of law bear in mind that any one genuinely in
of a lawyer is entitled to legal assistance even though need
he cannot pay for it fully or adequately and that withi
the limits of an Advocate's economic condition, free n
legal assistance to the indigent and oppressed is one
the highest obligations an advocate owes to society. of
Justice is a great interest of man on earth and the lawye
r is the high priest in the shrine of justice. The quali
·of justice, to a great extent, depends on the moral quali ty
ty, integrity and fairness of the lawyers. To develop
their moral qualities, the la ers must actively partic
ipate in the legal and aid programs and give free legal
services to the poor and the
· nt duties an advocate owes o t e society.
·If a lawyer personally knows that his client is unable
to pay because of poverty then he must represent the
·case without demanding any fees from him. Similarly,
when the court appoints a lawyer to defend an accused,
it is his moral obligation to accept such order and disch
arge his duties towards the court and the accused by
the best use of his knowledge and ability. Lawyers
shall co-operate and actively participate in joining hand
with the local area legal services Authorities in s
organizing Lok Adalats and Legal Aid programs
- conciliation proceedings. ano
-
Professional Misconduct and Punishments/Discipli
nary Proceedings
The Advocates Act defines professional misconduc
t as an act or omission by an advocate violating
standards of professional conduct prescribed by the the
Act or the rules made thereunder. Sectio 35 f the Act
enumerates various acts that constitute professional
misconduct, including: ·
/ Accepting Fees in Certain Cases: Lawyers cannot charg
e fees based on a percentage of the legal dispute
or hire others to generate work.
...,,,.,,,,,. Communication with Parties: Lawyers cannot comm
unicate directly with clients represented by anot ~r
lawyer unless they do so through that lawyer.
J Advertising and Solicitation:_ Advo~ates ~e restricted
from advertising their services or soliciting work,
directly or indirectly, except m specified crrcumstan
ces.
~ Neglect of Duty: Failure to appe
ar before a court or tribunal without sufficient cause,
. to matters entrusted, or willful disobedience of any neglecting to attend
lawful court order constitutes misconduct.
~Contempt of Cqurt: Disrespectful behavior
toward the courts or interfering with the farr adm"1bistr
· justice constitutes professional misconduct. ation of

- - -- ------ ---- ·---··-··--·- -···-·-·---····--···· ···----··-- -- ··-- · ··---··--·- - --·- -

·-·--·
6jP a g e
1t.. on their char acter,
is found guilty of a crime that reflects poorly
, ~ , . /4oJ1l'iction of an q(fen~e:1[ an advocate ' '
-10! .Y it., 1·5 considered profess10nal• misconduct.
,
pendence or
undermines an advocate's professional inde
~

~ / ~ n a l ~ndeJ?endence: Any ~cti~n that ct.

ed professional miscondu
/
----
brings d1scred1t to the legal profession 1s deem

·p;sciplinary ~roceedings: If a lawyer is suspected

.
of misconduct, the law allows for disciplinary
steps to be
ry committee can investigate
of lndia , or a related disciplina
taken. The State Bar Council, the Bar Council sed lawyer
take appropriate disciplinary measures. The accu
•;;pl aint s of misconduc!. These committees can eedings.
s and cross-examine witnesses during these proc
;ust be given a fair chance to defend themselve ority may
ose an advo cate is foun d guilty of professional misconduct. ln that case , the disciplinary auth
Supp specified
various pena lties, inclu ding suspensio n of the advocate froin practice for a
impo se qf advocates,
name from the roll
period, removal of the advocate's
n or damages
eved party may seek remedies such as restitu~io
or reprimand and censure. Additionally, the aggn
. through civil litigation.

Penalties ended from

d guilty of professional misconduct may be susp
/ Suspension from Practice: Advocates foun esenting
this period, the advocate is prohibited from _repr
practising law for a specified period. During
clients or engaging in any legal activities . er the advo~-a~e's
Rem oval from Roll: In severe cases of misconduct, the disciplinar); authority may o~d_
/ This 1s a
tively disqualifying them from prachcmg ~-
name removed from the roll of advocates, effec
cate from legal practice .
sfgnifi~ant penalty that pennane~tly bars the advo may issue a
instanc~s of misconduct, the disciplinary authority
. / Reprimand and Censure: For less severe sever~ as
the advocate for their actions. While not as
reprimand or censure, formally admonishing cate's
are disciplinary measures _and may affect the advo
suspension or removal, reprimand and. censure
reputation.

Remedies , the
financial loss or harm to a client or third party
0 Restitution: If an advocate's misconduct results.in for any
ieved party may seek restitution. This invo lves the advocate reimbursing the affected party
aggr tion
n aims to restore the aggrieved party to the posi
damages incurred due to the misconduct. Restitutio
occurred.
they would have been in had the miscaodnct not as part of
plinary authority may impose corrective measures
€) Corrective Measures: In some cases, the disci addi tional
include requiring the advocate to undergo
the remedy for professional misconduct. This could g of their
conduct or mandating supervision or monitorin
training or education on ethics and professional
·
practice to prevent future violations. .
-
@ Apology or Aclawwledgment: As part
of the remedy, the advocate may be required to
formally apolo1fise
es
aggrieved party or the public. This serv
or acknowledge their misconduct to the
untability.
to acknowledge wrongdoing and demonstrate acco
te limited
appellant sought to evict the respondent, a priva
lh Sa/ii Dutta v. TM and MC Pvt. Ltd. (1993), the nce of
ex-parte in favour of the appellant due to the abse
'Company, from certain premises. The trial court ruled ing that
t later applied to set aside the ex'-parte decree, claim
the respondent and their advocate. The responden rt rejected
hearing, Although the trial court and High Cou
their advocate advised them not to attend the final established
case based on Rafiq v. Munshi/al (1981), which
the a~~lication, the High Court later reopened the precedent
s negligence. The appellant contended that this
that ht'.gants _should oot suffer due to their advocate'
able company, not an uninformed villager.
w~s misapplied, as the respondent was a knowledge

71P age
 The Court ruled that the precedent set in Rafi
q v. M1111shilal (1981) did not apply in t~is ca~e.
·
where a rustic villager depended entirely· h. d t the respondent was a pnvate hm1ted
_Unlike~ Q.l
on 1s a voca e, - . ,
managed by educated businessmen , fully capa t d. le co~
al roceedm gs. The Court held ' •
· ble of un ders an m
• · · . that\~
advocate acts as an agent of the chen t,, and the actions or mac f1o ns of the advocate are attnbutable to th . ·"
In this cas;,- the Court expressed scepticism . .~
about the claim that the respo nd ent had ~enu
me~ y relied on th~~
. advocate's advi·ce not to appear for the fina l h · · · th1·s as a likel delaying tactic. The
earmg, v1ewmg . . Su~
.Court rejected e notion that e respondent Pte111t
could evade responsibility by blanim fberr
adv_ocate es ecially
given the respondent's level of education and
business acumen. It undersc_ored_that co_urts
p~ decrees due to an advocate's negligen ~ight set aside ex.
ce only in cases where the chent IS genumely
mnocent, but th_is
was not one of those instances .

In the case of An Advocate v. Bar Council

of India (BCI) (1989) , an advocate was accused
•misconduct foi settling a case out of court of professional
without informin g his client, the complainant, who had
him with a recovery case involving Rs. 30.0 entrusted
00. The State Bar Association found the advocate
appeal to the BCI under Section 37 of the Advo guilt y, and his
cates Act 1961 , was also djsmjssep. Tlie issues
whether the advocate was guilty of professio raised included
nal misconduct. whether specific charges
-:frn ror\)~ttfram~d to allow him a proper defense, and whether his should have been
o-, ne~h~ence. The S~preme ~ourt noted that
actions amounted to mere negligence or culp
proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocat
able
c.,6ff'~1 c~ al, ~nd ~ ~1lty ver~1ct _could severely es Act are quasi-
"\ a, . denymg him his nght to livelihood. It also high
damage an advocate's reputation and also have
lighted the distinction between mere negligen
the prospe~ts of
rc..
$~ ~ n~gligen~e, the burden of proof and proper char
ge framing is essential. Without formal char
ce and culpable
C,'n~,~~d1fficult for an ~dvocat~ to mou nt~ ges, it becomes
effective_defence. The Court also reiterated the
--rt> 0 . doubt, sug?estmg that if the BCI 1s not conv doct rine of benefit of the
mced beyond doubt of the advocate's culpabili
hJ>\ d must be ~1ven the ben~fit of the doubt. The ty, the advocat~
Court found that the BCI had not given the
~ . \~ opportumty to defend himself, as no form advocate a fair
?~t'r~• f framed for a fair trial. The Supreme Court
O\ '\ ~\ CO!DJ)lainant had admitted to not bein
al charges were framed, and natural justice dem
ordered the re-examination of the complainant,
ands that charges be
noting that the
g a tax.able assessee, and remitted the case back
,tl \~ whether the advocate's actions constituted negl to the BCI to decide
igence, misconduct, or a punishable offense. Fina
· ·remitted the case back to the BCI for reconside lly, the Court
ration, directing it to re-examine the complainant,
to not being a tax.able assessee, and to determine who admitted
whether the advocate 's actions constituted mere
imprudence, or professional misconduct dese negligence,
rving punishment
Jn the case of P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murthi
(1997), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue
.misconduct by an advocate, P.O. Gupta. Gup of professional
ta, who represented Yidyawati iu a property dispu
estate of the deceased Srikishan Das, purchase te over the
d a portion of the disputed property despite know
·complexities surrounding Vidyawati's claim ing the legal
as the rightful heir. This action was seen as
oebavior, as Gupta was in a position of trust unpr ofessional
an · uct breached the ethical standards expected · of
·advocates. Gupta argued that there was no
external pressure on Vidyawati to sell the prop
~ ed that the complaint against him, filed by erty, and he
Ram Murthi, w~s moti: ated by mala fid~ _inten
However, the Bar Council oflndia (BCI) foun tion~ .
d Gupta guilty of professional m1sconduct, emph
conduct was unbecoming of an advocate. The a_sizmg that his
Supreme Court supported the BCI 's decision,_notm
bad not only purchased the disputed property g that G~pta
for himself but also involved hi: son~in-law m
· -and later resold the property for personal the transaction,
gain. The Court ruled that Gupta s actl~ns amou
· t· f ro.-.essional ethics as they demonstrated a conf nted t~ a ~lear
vto 1a ion o P 11 lict of inter est and undu e mflu ence ove'. his cbent.
h '
ded from practicing law for one year. The decis• ion h"igbl"ighted th
e impo rtance
•
1
Conse_que~t-y, e.w:ss~:~~~:t egrit and the
of mamtaimng P.rofc s role of advo cates in upho lding justice, not only ~or their clien~
Y
but for the legal system as a whole. The case d red the responsibility of legal professionals to avoids
un ersco
- --- - ---- -- - - --- ·--···--· - -- ----- ---- ---------- -·-· ·--- ---
-- -- -- -- ---
SI Pa ge
 l

· • e, ·ent
l standards , and th of en forcm g strict measures to pr
aain at the expense of ethica . e necessity
-
,r.,,,naI = ct .mthe legal profession.
:<_· miscondu . . · t of
~ , r·-,01a11 th t d fr om a comp 1am
,,. Ba/tt,w1t Sinai, r,10 ,.u ~ e case s emme
ushal Kislwre Awast/ri in a famil y
,.,,

mplainant, in volved
"" "
"a ad vo cate . Th
I:)
e co
nll 1
•
the appellant , an t
ed against sale deed tha
1rofess
ional nus~oacluct lodg e a su it ch all em rin o the validity of a
ant to fil
d enga ged the a ell lainant ,
1

jis utc over ro e , ha t ul tim ate ly ru led in favor of the co mp

rty. The co ur
property to a third ·pa e appellant 's role in
this
transferred the family g the property am on g the he irs . Th
ineffective and aividin the com plainant decid
ed to sell his share
d~ g the sa le ~eed ev er, ye ars lat er, wh en
the court's decree. 'How the sale before the De
puty Re !!is trar.
matter concluded with pellant rai se d ob jec tio ns to
cial difficulties, the ap 40 000 which the appe
llant bad
of the land due to finan had not ful ly re pa id a de bt of Rs .
that the c-0mplainant mplainant
The appellant claimed se cu rit y Th is ac tio n was deemed by the co
d pled ged as onship to
son, with half of the lan ior professional relati
loaned to him and his that the advo ca te wa s us ing his pr
duct, as it was alleged essional
;-professional miscon ga rb fou nd the ap pellant guilty of prof
cil of Chbattis
The State Bar Coun of India CBCI} affirmed
the
interfere in the sale. o years. On ap pe al, the Ba r Co un cil
ded his practice for tw wever,
misconduct and suspen a fin e of Rs . 25 ,00 0. The Supreme Court, ho
one ye ar with ohibits an
uced the susp ension to ofessional Conduct pr
guilty finding but red t Rule 22 of the St an da rd s of Pr
gs. The Court noted tha ofessionally
ov erturned these rulin al pro ce ed in g in wh ich the advocate is pr
rt of a leg proceedings,
ing prop erty that is pa rt of any ongoing legal
advocate from purchas sale in qu es tio n wa s no t pa
this case, the property instead tied to a
engaged. However, in rel ate d to his rol e as an advocate but were
re no t was not acting in his
jections to the sale we held that the appellant
~ d the appellant's ob mp lai na nt. Th e Co urt
Supreme
gement with the ·co creditor. Therefore, the
personal financial arran e but rat he r as an ind ivi du al
en he objected to the sal outside their
capacity as· a lawyer wh by the Ba r Co un cil were ina ppro p_riate and
tiated Advocates Act.
cip linary proceedings ini al misconduct under the
Court ruled that the dis t co ns titu te rof ess ion
practice.
pellant's actions did no the ap pellant's right to
jutjsdiction, as the ap owed the ap pe al, rei ns tat ing
orders of the BCI and all
T e Court set aside the o served as a legal
) the ap pe lla nt was_an advocate and als
am Prasad Sharma (20 00 atters in
In R.D. Saxena v. Balar Lt d. Th e ba nk hir ed him to handle legal m
tive Bank back the files
Pradesh State Coopera and asked him to give
advisor to the Madhya nk eri de d his po sit ion
pay him
olved. However, the ba isted that the bank first
which the bank was inv s, the law ye r ref us ed an d ins
cases, but they
tead of returning the file files for ongoing legal
related to the bank. Ins . Th e ba nk ne ed ed the ctor of
his due remuneratio
ns for his legal services rea so na ble . As a res ult, the Managing Dire
ring them un The complaint
yer's demands, conside ) on 3rd February I 994.
.disagreed with the law un cil (M ad hy a Pr ad esh lawyer
nt with the State Bar Co ° the roceedings, the
the Bank filed a complai not ret um in° the file s.· Du rin
ht of lien. e
fessional mis·conduct for keep them using his rig
accused the lawyer of pro t he ha d the rig ht to
vocate
the files but argued tha re was whether the ad
admitted to not returning for his leg al wo rk. Th e iss ue he
s once the bank paid him ing the case files
offered to return the file d to him by the client? Th<: bank, need
the litigation papers en tru ste r CounCl·1.
has a lien for his fees on na wi th the M adhya Pradesh State Ba
throuoh an a ~
ain st Sa xe
ings, filed a complaint ag Supreme Court of India
for ongoing legal proceed of Ind ia an d lat er the c. P?e ·
. ed the Bar Council Saxena ::,l!l.lilty of::,pro1e ss1onal .
The case eventually reach cis ion of the Ba r Co un cil of Ind ia, fin ding RD · · .
Co urt up held the de rec o!? Ilis ed tha t th 0 ~
The Supreme . Ho we ve r, the Co urt ~ ~ 0
. to return the case files. ::,
na 's possible bona fid e ~ tM ~ had a
bel" f h
IDISconduct for refusmg ac kn ow led ed
0 Sa xe
. ts on this issue and Instead 0 fd bannent from
Supreme.Court preceden red uc ed the sev eri of the unishment. e . ·
practice
. ht of lien. Therefore, the Co urt o cla rif ied th th · hm .
urt als at e lighter urus ent m
ng
the Co urt iss ue d a rep rimand to Saxena. The Co an d
for 18 months,· ure cases.·In the future , Ya vocate found gu il ty of similar
•s cases ou not e t en as a recedent for fut
. thi .cter penalties.
llll.Sconduct would face stn

91 P a g e
 The Supreme Court stated that files and
do not qualify as "goods" that can be with
records held by ~n adv oc~ e
held for unpaid fees . The
The Supre me Court , led by Justic e
follow ing key obser vatio ns:
• ,, ·0 Rig/rt of Lim _~-n Case
'
K.T. Tholl\a
\\
F:es: The Coun ''I\
term "goods" is defined in the Sale of Goo Sax ena' s claim of 1en over 1_e case
ds Act , l 930 and do ~ot files. h ti
include legal records. The concept of bail that Sectio n 171 of the India n Comr
ment, defined in Sec ti?n n>L&t"'::,_
applie s to " •oods'· that are bai l
nfes ~-
148 of the lndian Contract Act, 1872 invo a 3!£cj fic pmpa sc 1-low evcr, case fil · - n.11
lves delivering goods ~•th es and liti , ~
paper s canno 1
an agreement for their return, which do t be classi fied as :·good s" u ~,
not apply to legal file~ . The provt sion. as they hold no mtnn s1c
marketable Valu
court emphasized that w~hholding reco Good s, as defin ed in the Sale of Good
rds for unpaid fees cou ld s Act, 1 9 ~~
harm the client's case. Advocates shou to mova ble prope rty that can be sold
or Jcaosliac.cd_
ld not have the right to Case files do not fit this defin ition. as
thev are n!:il),.,
withhold records due to unpaid fees; inste saleab le nor can they be conve rted into
ad, they can pursue le&al •
mone y.
remedies for payment. 1f a client changes Bailm ent Does Not Apply : The Court
further ruled that
advocates, the former mus t the concept of bailm ent, as defin ed under
Section 14~
return the case files , and disputes over of the Indian Contr act Act, does not a
fees should be reso lved Ba, mcnt mvo vcs t c delive ry of goods
ly to case fil s.
separately. The court stressed the for a specific
social duty of the legal purpo se with an oblig ation to return the
goods after the
profession to support people, ensuring they purpo se is fulfilled. Howe ver, the relati
are not deprived of their an advoc ate and a client, partic ularly
onshi p between
.rights due to an advocate's position. Whi regard ing case
le advocates can s~fees by files, docs not const itute bailm cnt, as
the files arc not
· agreement, unpaid fees do not justify goods delivered with a contr actua
withholding client documents. l obligation for
~
. The Sup rem e Court in n :P. Chadha • Professional Misconduct: The Court emphasised that
v. Triyugi Narain Mishra withholding case files for unpai d fees
could severely
. (200 0) focused on several key issues harm a client 's ability to pursu e ongoi
related to professional ethics, An advocate has a duty to return
ng legal matte rs .
mis con duc t, and the role of advocate case files upon
s in the justice system. The termination of professional engag emen
t, and failure to
cou rt's reasoning emphasized t~ do so constirutes profe ssiona l misco
nduct under
gravity of the misconduct Section 35 of the Advo cates Aot, 196
committ.~.<.! by Shri D.P. Chadha and I. The Court
the other advocates which reiterated that an advoc ate's relati onshi
p wit}:,. a client
und erm ined the very foundations of justi is fiduciary, and the advoc ate's duty to
the client takes
ce and the trust reposed in precedence over financial dispu tes.
lega l professionals. The core issue revo
lved around a fabricated • Right to Chan ge Advo cates : The Court
that under Article 22( I} of the India n
highli ghted
com prom ise agreement filed in an ongoing Const itutio n an
eviction suit. Mishra, the accused person has the fundamenta
l right to ' be
defendant, had entrusted his legal defe represented by_an advoc ate of their choic
nse to Chadha. While Mishra tmphes that a litigant must have the freed
e. This right
was abse nt from Jaipur, engaged in elec om to chang e
tion campaigning in Uttar advoc ates tf they so desire. Allowing an advoc
ate to
Prad esh, Cha dha used a blan k Vakalatn retain case files for unpai d fees would
infringe on this
ama and a blank sheet of fundamental right.
pap er pre- sign ed by Mishra to fabricate
a compromise without • Rules 28 and 29 of the Advo cates Act: The Court
Mis hra' s knowledge. This comprom referred to Rules 28 and 29 framed by the
Bar Council
ise, verified by another of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
adv ocat e, Ani l Sharma, was presented These rules
to the court as a voluntary allow an advocate to appropriate any unspe
nt amou nt
left tn thetr hands after the conclusion
agre eme nt betw een the parties, even thou of a case or
gh Mishra was unaware of deduct unpaid fees from the clicaf s IDOI\!lY
. Howe ver,
it. The cou rt emphasized that this . was these rules do not grant advocates. the
right ta ret;Jin
not merely an error of case files or litigation papers for unpai
judg men t .but a deliberate act of dece d~ute over tees _must be resolved separa
d fees. Any
ption aimed at securing an . tely throut:h
. evic tion decree, whi ch led to the clos legal remedies, without impeding the client
's access lo
ure of a school attended by their case documents .
2,00 0 students .

The cou rt stressed that advocates, as

officers of the court, are bound by a high
con duc t and integrity. The primary con er standard of professional
cern was the willful attempt by the advo
insistence on the personal appearance cates to bypass the cou rt's
of the defendant to verify the authenticity
the trial cou rt's rs,e ated orders for Mis of the compromise. Despite
hra' s presence, Chadha resisted and filed a serie
Mis hra from appearing, ultimately secu s of appeals to prevent
ring a compromise decree without Mis hra'
found, was part of a "sinister design" s know ledge. This, the court
by the advocates to prevent their own
fabr icat ed proceedings, and such acti clien t from learning of the
ons amounted to oss ssio nal misc
reas one d t at an a voc ate' s duty exte onduct. The court further
nds beyo nd securing favorable outcome
uph old just ice and ensure the cou rt is not s for clients. Advocates must
. The bench reiterated that the correct inte
· an fairness to both the client and the rpretation of the law
court are paramount. In this case, Chadha
duty -to his clie nt but also sought to ~':_c ' s actio ns not only violated his
e~ve the court by pus hing for a has~ and
fraudulent settlement. 1he
10 IP age
 _ . . . Bar
br ea tb of rofe - 1 ics , Just1fymg the punishment imposed by the ,
found this to be a severe P ssion a eth
L!f1 .
~

Ra m Yada v v. Ha nu ma n D Kh y (20 OJ), the Supreme Court's reasoning focuse· d on the

Shambhu . as atr f · h - the
.
nal nu scond uc t an d th J
t e legal professio n in upholding the sancti· ty of
avity of professio , e ro e o · · to
phasized tha t leg I c. · I
s are not me rel y ser vice providers but are mtegral
diciary. Th urt em
e Co a pro
1ess1ona intain ethical
~ _ . . vo cat es be ar a heavy responsibility to ma
st co urt , ad
t . As officers of the actions that
1
e adIIllillS rat1on of 1u ise o tow ard s the co urt and societ y at large . Any
s their clients but als , strike at
Jnduct, not only toward h as off eri ng bri be s to influence judicial .decisions
of the legal system, suc respondent's misconduct
in writing
omprom1se the mtegrity ha vio r int ole rab le. Th e
tice. This makes.such be damental breach of trust,
not only
ne very foundation of jus gm ent wa s see n as a fun
ble jud
t letter suggesting
a bribe to secure a favora ore d tha t such actions undermine
public
e Co urt un de rsc
o towards the court . Th Bar Councils are responsi
ble tor
.owards the client but als It po int ed ou t tha t the
and the legal profession. cy severely, especially wh
en it
confidence in the judiciary st de al wi th de lin qu en
of the profession and mu
maintaining the integrity
dibil ity af tb e system. •
threatens to erode the cre
anent
y's punishment from perm
,;_.

de cis ion to· red uc e Kh atr

ized the review committee's non-existent grounds , as
all relevant
The Supreme Court critic rev iew wa s bas ed on
and. It noted that the ginal ord_!r.
debarment to mere reprim g car eer , had alr ead y be en duly considered in the ori
ndent's age and lon red him unfit to
factors, including the respo nd uc t wa s of suc h a serious nature that it rende
respondent's mi sco ,
The Court held that the wa s see n as a gri ev ou s vio lation of professional ethics
e attempt to corrupt a judge seriousness of the miscond
uct.
continue practicing law. Th t wo uld fai l to ad dre ss the
t any lesser punishmen ount in the
and the Court reiterated tha h sta nd ard s of mo ral ity and ethical conduct is param
t maintaining hig rce~ that Bar
The Court emphasized tha th Kh atr y's ext ens ive exp erience. The decision reinfo
y for someone wi o disrepute, stressing
legal profession, especiall · tha t cou ld brin the le al rofession int
! a ain st an a e original
Councils must act decisive o be see n to be do ne . Th e Supreme Court restore
be done but must als ious misconduct
· that justice must not only pe nn an en tly deb ar Kh atr y reinforcing that such ser
of India to
decision of the Bar Council
lty
deserved the highest pena
in Service the Indian
Li ab ili ty for Deficiency are liab le for all eg ed deficiency in seryjces un der
An important question
on whether advocates me Court of India.
tectio n Ac t has bee n pu t to rest by the Hon'ble Supre
Consumer Pro and Pankaj
24 ), a Su pre me Co urt ben ch of Justices Bela Trivedi
v. D.K. Gandhi (20 deficiencies in
In Bar ofIndian Lawyers der the Co nsu me r Pro tection Act (CPA) 2019 ) for
are not lia ble un (NCDRC).
Mithal ruled that advocates Na tio nal Co nsu me r Di spu tes Redressal Commission
lier decision of the m unfair trade
service, overturning the ear in 20 19 , wa s int end ed to protect con sumers fro
A, re-ena cted e law or
The Court ruled tha~ the CP 19 ver sio ns of the Ac t aim ed to include professions lik
1986 nor the·20 personal service "
practices , and that neither the d tha t a law yer 's ser vices fall under a "contract Of '
w. It conclu de"
medicine within their purvie vic e" un der Se ction 2(4 2) of the CPA, 2019..:.
initibn of"ser
excluding them from the def and h Id not h e equated
sio n is sui generis-unique in nature-- s ou - .
The Court emphasi. zed tha . t the leg al pro fes
. n inv olv es a hig h lev el of ed f10 skill , and spec1:ahzed
. ed tha tthe pro fes sio uca 11z .
with other-- professions.. It .exp. lam id Wh"I
.- ,-ge, ma
--ow --- 1t dtstmct from commercial services or oods rov ers. • 1•e professionals are ~t
-.km
·
kn led
.immune from legal ltab • . for nu.sconduct the CPA does not apply to defi1c1enc1es m rofessional servic
• 1ltt . es
' ·
ween ad t . d 4
cussing the relationship bet rt
voca es and clients ' the Co U no.te that
rendered by advocates . In dis owe fiduciary dut i· Ad r .
advocates act as agents ofth(?ir clients and es. vocat.es .must foll ow c tent mstruct1ons and ,
. sions or statem ent s wi tho ut s dynamic , th e Cou-rt
are not entitled to make conces express -per-1ll.lss1on. Given thi
- e --
11 I P a g
 held that there is significant cuntro1'by clients over the advocate inforcing the idea that their relationsh' )
s, re ---- 1\1
is based on a contract of personal service.
~ .
T h ~ h a d relied on the landmark Indian Medic · ·
al Association v. V.P.
· · Shantha (1995 . ). judgeinent,
where doctors were held accountable under the CPA. The
The Court opined that the earlier Judgment in
Supreme Court in D.K. Gandhi questioned this precedent,
Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha_(1995),
· a review
suggest mg · of V.P. Shantha, which
· cou ld po tent'ia ll Y wh' h h Id doctors accountable ·under tfie
1c . e . CPA
·
lead to doctors also being excluded from the CPA's pu~ie . should be reconsidered. The bench requested that'
w the Chief Justice ofl~dia refer V.P. Shantha for
in the future . The bench's decision was grounded in the idea
review by a larger bench, potentially excluding
that the relationship between a client and an advocafe
doctors from the CPA's scope just as advocates
resembles that of a master-servan{, which excludes advocates
were in this case.
from being covered by the CPA. L.. .:= == --- --- --- --- -'
In V.P. Shantha, the Court had made a clear distinction between
a "contract for services" (where professionals
exercise independence) and a "contract of service" (where one
party is subject to control by another). The
D.K. Gandhi bench, however, revisited this distinction, relyin
g on the Dharangadhra Chemical Works Lt~ v.
State of Saurashtra (1957) judgement, and argued that clients exerci
se considerable control over advocates,
thus classifying their relationship as a "contract of service." This
reasoning has been criticized for overstating
the extent of client control, as advocates often retain significant
professional discretion, much like doctors.
The D.K. Gandhi judgement ha§ been criticized for ignoring key
legislative intent. The CPA 's amendments,
including the addition of services like telecom, demonstrate that
the Act was not meant to be exclusionary, as
s':!_ggested by the Court. Moreover, in V.P. Shantha, the Court had
already clarified that doctors could fall under
the CPA, despite being subject to professional disciplinary contro
ls, an aspect that was overlooked in D.K.
~ i . The decision also ~uggested that professional services
like those offered by advocates and doctors ~e
inherently outside the CPA's purview, even though professions
like journalism are explicitly included. The
bench expressed concern t!_iat bringing all professionals under
the CPA could lead to a flood of litig ~ut
this argument was not supported with evidence. More troubling
was the suggestion to review V.P. Shantha, as
it could undo years of established jurisprudence holding profes
sionals acco?ntable for deficiencies in service.
Cases like Najrul Seikh v Dr. Sumit Banerjee (2024) and
a 2013 Supreme Court judgement on medical
negligence had expanded the reach of V.P. Shantha to hold
medical professionals liable for professional
misconduct, all of which now faces uncertainty due to the D.K.
Gandhi ruling . ---

MODULE IV -BAR-BENCH RELATIONSIDP

Contempt or Criticism?
Contempt is a feeling of disdain or scorn for something that is
considered mean, vile, or worthless. It can also
mean the state of being despised, dishonoured, or disgraced. Conte
mpt can also mean behaviour that is illeg_al
because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.
It here in the context of the court refers to the
\ iso eymg, owermg authority, e amin and disres ectin the
court.
For its regulation we have Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
Contempt of court seeks to protect judicial
institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism,
and as a legal mechanism to punish those who
lower its authority. Fair and accurate reporting of judicial procee
dings will not amount to contempt of court.
Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after
a case is heard and 'disposed of.
Kinds of Contempt of Court:
0 Civil Contempt: It is the wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to
a court. Under Se~tion_ 2(b) of the Act of
1971, Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience to any judgm
ent, deci::e, drrechon,__or~:~ -~r-~t~~~
12 IP age