Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar Etc. Etc

 

Vande Matram! Here a case regarding the professional misconduct of an advocate is discussed.

Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar Etc. Etc

Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 242, 1976 SCR (2) 48

Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.

Act: Advocates Act, 1961

Facts of the case:

1) The respondents were lawyers practicing in criminal courts and they were charged with professional misconduct under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

2) Respondents positioned themselves at the entrance to the Magistrates' Courts, watchful of the arrival of potential litigants, and at sight, rushed the clients in an ugly scrimmage to snatch the briefs. To lay claim to the engagements even by the physical fight to undercut fees, and by this unedifying exhibition sometimes carried even into the Bar Library, solicited and secured work for themselves.

3) The Bar Council of Maharashtra considered the complaint received from the High Court against the lawyers and referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee for further probe.

4) The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council held the respondents guilty of professional misconduct and suspended them from practicing as advocates for three years.

5) On appeal, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that under R. 36 of the Rules framed under S. 49(c) of the Advocates Act to be amenable to the disciplinary jurisdiction the advocates must have (i) solicited work (ii) from a particular person and (iii) concerning a case. 

6) It held that unless the three elements were satisfied it could not be said that an advocate had acted beyond the standard of professional conduct and etiquette. It, therefore, absolved all the respondents of the charge of professional misconduct. The State Bar Council has come in appeal to this Court.

7) Disciplinary Committee of the state bar council had decided 8 matters separately and in each case, the concerned advocates were suspended from practice for three years. But the appellate disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India had clubbed all matters.

Observations of Supreme Court:

1) The court upheld the competence to appeal under s.38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

2) Justice cannot be attained without the stream being pellucid throughout its course and that is of great public concern, not merely professional care.

3) The profound regret of these cases lies not only in the appellate disciplinary tribunal's subversive view of the law of professional conduct that attempted solicitation by snatching briefs and catching clients is or no ethical moment, or contravention of the relevant provisions, but also in the naive innocence of fair and speedy procedure displayed by the State Disciplinary Tribunal in clubbing together various charges levelled against 16 advocates in one common trial, mixing up the evidence against many, recording omnibus testimony slipshodly, not maintaining a record of each day's proceedings, examining witnesses in the absence of some respondents, taking eight years to finish a trial involving depositions of four witnesses and the crowning piece, omission to consider the evidence against each alleged delinquent individually in the semi-penal proceedings.

4) As eight cases are clubbed together case-by-case disposal is desirable.

5) Dabholkar: The evidence against him is far from satisfactory and suffers from generalised imputation of misconduct against a group of guilty lawyers. He was a senior public prosecutor at age of 68 years. He had just four cases left with him which he desired to complete, having received fees. Also, he is willing to retire from the profession. On the evidence, we exonerate him from professional misconduct and otherwise we record his solemn statement to the Court.

6) Bhagtani: After examining the evidence, whatever was found extinguishes the charge against him. No need arises for punishing him.

7) Talati: He has been found 'not guilty' in appeal but, as we perused the evidence, it became fairly clear that some acts of misconduct had been made out, although the evidence suffered from omnibus implication. Further, he has given an undertaking expressing unqualified regret for his deviant behaviour and has prayed for the clemency of the Court, promising to turn a new leaf of proper professional conduct, if he were permitted to practice. In short, Court found him guilty and reluctantly restored the verdict of the original tribunal, but reduced the punishment to suspension from practice, as aforesaid.

8) Kelawala: Kelawala had become purblind and was ready to give an undertaking to the Court that he would no longer practice in the profession. In this view, Court did not disturb the finding of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.

9) Dixit: Evidence against this advocate was inadequate to bring him guilty of misconduct. Court readily hold him rightly absolved from professional misconduct.

10) Madalia: The evidence is so little that it is not possible or proper to pick out with precision and assurance any particular 'soliciting' act to infer guilt.

11) Doshi: He appears to have fair professional weather ahead in the City. Court holds him unblemished so far as the vice of solicitation is concerned, but caution him to refine himself in advocacy.

12) Raisinghani: Evidence shows that although he is 65 years old, the evidence shows that he has physically fought two rival advocates in the course of snatching the briefs from clients, entering the Esplanade criminal courts. He was a refugee from Pakistan. He has given an undertaking expressing remorse, praying to be shown clemency and assuring that, economic pressure notwithstanding, he will not go anywhere near professional pollution in the last years of his practice at the Bar. The court is inclined to take a sympathetic view of his septuagenarian situation, record his apology and assurance, restore the verdict of guilt by the State Disciplinary Committee but reduce the punitive part of it.

13) State Tribunal had taken 8 years for this enquiry.

14) As per the order of the Supreme Court all parties to the suit have to bear the cost.

To know the references and to read more articles related to Professional ethics and professional accounting system please visit this page Legal Profession: Professional Ethics and Professional accounting system.

Thanks for reading till the end. Please share this with all legal professionals.