misconduct

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

1Createdby:AnchitKhokher

CONTENTSPAGE

TABLEOFCASES..01INTRODUCTION...............03WHATISPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT?...................................04BRIEFFACTSOFTHECASE..07CONTENTIONSOFTHEPARTIESANDJUDGMENTOFTHECOURT.08LEGALPROVISIONSINVOLVED.11CONCLUSION....13LEADINGCASESOFPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCTININDIA.....15BIBILOGRAPHY...........19

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


30. InformingAboutBribe:MisconductShambhuRamYadavv.HanumanDasKhatry,[14]Nameshouldbestruckofffrom,therollofadvocatesmaintainedbytheBarCouncilofRajasthan.CourtimposeacostofRs.5,000/.

[14](2001)6SCC1.165

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE


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

misconduct

Documents

scc cri

state delhi

state of karnataka

state bank of india

state of punjab

state of haryana

bar council of india

union of india