Chandra Shekhar Soni vs Bar Council Of Rajasthan And Ors.

 

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

Chandra Shekhar Soni vs Bar Council Of Rajasthan And Ors.

Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 SC 1012, 1983 (2) SCALE 384, (1983) 4 SCC 255

Bench: A Sen, E Venkataramiah, R Misra

Acts: Section 35(c), Section 38 of Advocates Act 1961, Bar Council of India Rules.

Facts of the case:

First Charge:

a) First charge on the appellant was that he changed sides in a criminal case, holding that though such conduct on his part was unprofessional, it was not tantamount to professional misconduct.

b) The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India rightly observes that it failed to appreciate the distinction drawn by the State Bar Council as his act in accepting the brief for the accused after having appeared for the complainant was clearly contrary to R. 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. This is a duty of an advocate towards his client.

c) It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for an advocate while retained by one party to accept the brief of the other, in the same case.

d) It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests except by express consent given by all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts. Appellant has not taken any consent from his clients i.e. complainants.

e) The appellant would not have appeared for the other side except with the permission of the learned Magistrate. Also he has not obtained any permission from the Magistrate in whose Court the case was pleaded.

f) A lawyer when entrusted with a brief is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. It is his duty towards his client as well as towards his profession.

Second Charge:

a) Complainant and his wife were assaulted and got injured. After examined by a Radiologist, no injury found to Complainant, but his wife was suspected of having a fracture in skull and suggested to a specialist. Appellant approached complainant and promised to get a favourable report if he was engaged as a counsel and said that Rs. 300/- had to be paid to the Radiologist.

b) He had procured the brief of the complainant in another case on a fee of Rs. 300/- on the representation that he would secure a favourable report from the Radiologist showing that there was a fracture of the skull. For this he sent complainant to radiologist with Rs 300/- and a letter.

c) The appellant was guilty of reprehensible conduct.

d) The preamble to Chapter II Part VI of the Rules lays down that an advocate shall at all times, comfort himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, privileged member of the community and a gentleman.

e) R. 4 of this Chapter provides that an advocate shall use his best effort to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp and unfair practices etc. But in this case appellant himself was conducting the unfair practices to forge the evidences.

f) There is a long catena of decisions laying down that offering of bribe or giving bribe or taking money from the client for the purpose of giving bribe amounts to grave professional misconduct.

g) In defense of this charge the appellant said that the letter was given for publishing an advertisement to some other person and not the radiologist. But in fact no such advertisement was published anywhere. As per complainant he visited radiologist with that letter, but radiologist returned the same after reading.

Observations of Supreme Court:

1) Appellant was procured false evidence to save himself, in which, he failed. The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant had taken money to pay a bribe to the Radiologist.

2) Though appellant is junior, he has to remember that he is now belongs to noble profession, which has very high traditions and those traditions are not to be sullied by malpractices of this nature.

3) Court strongly deprecate the conduct of the appellant but take a lenient view because he was an inexperienced member of the bar.

Punishment:

1) Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council: Suspended from practice for three years.

2) Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India: Upheld the order of State Bar Council.

3) Supreme Court: Took a lenient view as the appellant was junior and inexperience and reduced the period of suspension from three years to one year.

Conclusion:

It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for an advocate while retained by one party to accept the brief of the other, in the same case. A lawyer when entrusted with a brief is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. It is his duty towards his client as well as towards his profession. An advocate shall use his best effort to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp and unfair practices. Though an advocate is junior and inexperienced he must know that is now belongs to the noble profession of advocacy.

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.