Scribd
Upload
190 views10 pages

Disciplinary Cases in Professional Ethics

The document discusses landmark cases related to professional misconduct of advocates in India as decided by the Supreme Court and opinions of the disciplinary committees of Bar Councils. It provides details of 5 important cases where advocates were found guilty of misconduct like misappropriation of funds, attempting murder, and not returning fees to clients. It also summarizes 4 leading opinions of the Bar Council of India where advocates were found guilty of misconduct in cases related to false claims, undisclosed business activities, and misrepresentation.

Uploaded by

chahat
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
190 views10 pages

Disciplinary Cases in Professional Ethics

The document discusses landmark cases related to professional misconduct of advocates in India as decided by the Supreme Court and opinions of the disciplinary committees of Bar Councils. It provides details of 5 important cases where advocates were found guilty of misconduct like misappropriation of funds, attempting murder, and not returning fees to clients. It also summarizes 4 leading opinions of the Bar Council of India where advocates were found guilty of misconduct in cases related to false claims, undisclosed business activities, and misrepresentation.

Uploaded by

chahat
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

PROFESSIONAL

ETHICS AND
PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM
(CLINICAL)

MODULE 6
Module 6: Opinions of the
Disciplinary Committees and
landmark cases:

• Selected opinions of the


Disciplinary Committees of Bar
Councils
• Judgements of the Supreme Court
on the subject
Important cases of Professional
Misconduct – Advocates Act:
Under section 38 of the Advocates Act, any
person aggrieved by an order of the Bar
Council of India may prefer an appeal to the
Supreme Court. Following is a list of
important cases decided by Apex court in
appeal from BCI.

1. Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar


Council of India:
Prahlad Saran Gupta collected a sum of Rs.
1600 from the judgment debtor and did not
pay it to the Decree Holder but later
deposited it in the court before appealing
against the bar council disciplinary
proceedings.
The Supreme Court has held that the
anticipated settlement between the parties
for Rs.1500/- was deposited with the
appellant.

Still, he did not return the amount either to


the decree-holder or the judgment debtor
and retained the amount for himself until he
deposited the said amount in the court
which is against professional ethics and
conduct especially being a senior counsel
this kind of conduct is not expected.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that for


this ground the appellant was held guilty of
gross professional misconduct and is
punished for the same.
The punishment of reprimand is imposed on
the appellant for this part of his misconduct
to meet the ends of justice.

2. Hikmat Alikah v. Ishwar Prasad


In this case an advocate was held guilty of
an offence of attempting to commit murder
and was convicted for it. His name was then
removed from roll of advocates as he was
unworthy of remaining in the legal
profession.

3. P.O. Gupta v. Ram. Murti


The Appellant Advocate was practicing in
Delhi. For his professional misconduct he
was suspended from practice for one year.
Under section 38 of the Advocates Act, he
filed an appeal before Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court upheld the order of the State
Bar Council suspending him from practice
for one year.

4. Oalal D.S. v. State Bank of India


In this case the advocate misappropriated
the amount paid towards filling of suit and
professional fees. The disciplinary
committee found him guilty. On appeal the
Supreme Court declined to interfere and
thus upheld the order passed by Bar council
of India.

5. Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v.


Balwant Singh Thakur and
Another
Advocates Act, 1961 S.35, S.49 : Allegation
that Advocate interdicted (an official
instruction from a court telling someone
that they are not allowed to do something)
sale proceedings, whether amounts to
professional misconduct?

When the alleged act was done by a person


not in his capacity as an Advocate, it cannot
amount to professional misconduct. What is
relevant is whether the act has anything to
do with the professional conduct of
Advocate : Standards of Professional
Conduct and Etiquette.

Selected Opinions of the disciplinary


Committee of the Bar Council of India:
The disciplinary committee of a State Bar
Council after giving the advocate
concerned and the Advocate-General an
opportunity of being heard, can take legal
actions against the Advocate. In such a case
he has a right to appeal before the Bar
Council of India. Here is a list of leading
opinions of Bar Council of India, while
deciding such appeals.

1. Jagadish Singh and Others v.


[Link]
Jagadish Singh and others were employees
of a School in New Delhi. They approached
T.C. Sharma, Advocate and paid fees to file
a case against their arbitrary dismissal from
their School. The allegation is that without
filing the case the advocate has given a case
number from the Administrative Tribunal,
which was found to be false. When the
advocate refused to return the fees paid, the
complaint was filed.
Result: the Advocate was found guilty of
misconduct.
2. Babulal v. Subash Jain
The complainant and the Respondent are
advocates. The allegation is that though a
practicing lawyer, the respondent is also
working as an Editor, Printer, and Publisher
of a weekly magazine a fact which was not
disclosed at the time of applying for
enrolment. Though the respondent denied
the allegation it was found that the
respondent actively carried on the business
as alleged which amounted to professional
misconduct.

3. Indure Ltd., v. Deo Raj Gupta


The Respondent is the advocate of the
complainant company. The allegation is
that the respondent has not filed suits
against two other companies, but though he
had informed the company about
compliance, he had not filed any suit.
Finally, it was found to be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and the respondent was
prohibited from practicing as an advocate.

4. Commissioner of Civil Supplies &


Consumer Protection Dept v.
Balakrishnan
The appeal was against the order of the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu giving the benefit of
the doubt to the respondent. The allegation
is that he has sent telegrams to Revenue
authorities misrepresenting the order in writ
petitions. Finally, it was held that it was
professional misconduct.

Common questions

Powered by AI

The Supreme Court justified reprimanding Prahlad Saran Gupta by pointing out that he collected a sum from the judgment debtor but did not pay it to the decree holder and kept it for himself until required to deposit it in court. This act was considered against professional ethics, particularly for a senior counsel, demonstrating gross professional misconduct .

The disciplinary committee's decision to find T.C. Sharma guilty of misconduct after he falsely gave a case number without actually filing the case illustrates the committee's role in enforcing accountability and upholding professional standards. By ensuring advocates fulfill their obligations truthfully, the committee sustains trust in the legal system .

In P.O. Gupta v. Ram. Murti, the Supreme Court upheld the State Bar Council's decision to suspend the advocate for one year due to professional misconduct. This decision aligns with the principles of consistency as it reinforces the Bar Council's authority and the uniformity of disciplinary actions across jurisdictions, maintaining a standard approach to professional ethics violations .

The Supreme Court's refusal to interfere with the decision in Oalal D.S. v. State Bank of India underscores the judiciary's respect for the disciplinary bodies' autonomy, thus reinforcing the perception of impartiality and confidence in the established framework for handling professional misconduct within the legal community .

The Prahlad Saran Gupta case teaches that senior advocates must adhere to the highest standards of ethics and responsibilities, such as promptly returning client funds or following proper procedures. Any deviation, as demonstrated by Gupta's delay in transferring funds, is considered significant misconduct, reinforcing the idea that ethical lapses, regardless of scale, undermine trust in the legal process and are taken seriously by the courts .

In Hikmat Alikah v. Ishwar Prasad, the advocate's name was removed from the roll because he was convicted of attempting to commit murder, a crime reflecting unworthiness of remaining in the legal profession. Such removal aligns with standard disciplinary procedures where an advocate’s conduct, if deemed highly unethical or criminal, ends with severe actions like being struck off the roll, ensuring integrity in the profession .

The case of Babulal v. Subash Jain underscores the importance of full disclosure; the respondent failed to disclose their simultaneous engagement as an Editor, Printer, and Publisher while applying for enrollment. This nondisclosure was deemed professional misconduct, emphasizing the need for integrity and transparency to avoid conflicts of interest within the legal profession .

The outcome of Indure Ltd., v. Deo Raj Gupta, where it was found beyond reasonable doubt that the advocate did not file the promised suits, suggests that proving professional misconduct requires clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing, reinforcing the principle that significant proof is necessary to uphold charges of misconduct .

The verdict in Commissioner of Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Dept v. Balakrishnan illustrates the balance between doubt and evidence. Although the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu initially gave the benefit of the doubt, clarifying facts about sent telegrams misrepresenting court orders shifted the balance towards misconduct. This highlights how evidence should decisively outweigh doubt to merit disciplinary action .

The Supreme Court determined that misconduct must be evaluated based on whether the alleged misconduct was carried out in the person's capacity as an advocate. If the act was not related to professional conduct as an advocate, it cannot constitute professional misconduct .

You might also like