MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court expressed concern over the increasing trend of attacking advocates and directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to dismiss a complaint against a government advocate.
The court stated that unless there is proven misconduct within the framework of the law or a valid case for investigation, advocates shouldn’t be criticized based solely on litigant grievances.
The court emphasized that the repercussions of such actions on advocates’ lives and careers, along with the accompanying emotional distress, are significant.
The judges underscored their concern for maintaining standards at the Bar and ensuring that advocates’ interests are not compromised due to unfounded complaints.
The court criticized the practice of routinely filing complaints against opposing counsel, terming it as a practice to be condemned. Advocates are responsible for their clients and the court, not for presenting the opposing party’s case.
The judges noted that such disciplinary complaints are often used to intimidate and pressure opposing counsel, hindering proper legal representation.
The case pertained to a government pleader who sought the rejection of a disciplinary complaint lodged by a college lecturer turned advocate related to a wrongful termination case.
The State Bar Council’s referral of the matter to its disciplinary committee was contested. The court found flaws in the recommendation to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee, highlighting the advocate’s role as an officer of the court.
Despite a convoluted history to the case, the court rejected the complainant’s argument that any advocate who signs an affidavit as an Advocate-on-Record is responsible for its factual accuracy.
The court cited Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clarifying that affidavits are limited to facts the deponent can personally prove.
The court also criticized the complainant’s argument for potentially undermining the legal profession by making Advocates-on-Record unwilling to sign any document.
While the court had the option to impose costs on the complainant, the advocate representing the government pleader chose not to press for costs. The court appreciated this decision as a display of the Bar’s finest traditions.
The court stated that unless there is proven misconduct within the framework of the law or a valid case for investigation, advocates shouldn’t be criticized based solely on litigant grievances.
The court emphasized that the repercussions of such actions on advocates’ lives and careers, along with the accompanying emotional distress, are significant.
The judges underscored their concern for maintaining standards at the Bar and ensuring that advocates’ interests are not compromised due to unfounded complaints.
The court criticized the practice of routinely filing complaints against opposing counsel, terming it as a practice to be condemned. Advocates are responsible for their clients and the court, not for presenting the opposing party’s case.
The judges noted that such disciplinary complaints are often used to intimidate and pressure opposing counsel, hindering proper legal representation.
The case pertained to a government pleader who sought the rejection of a disciplinary complaint lodged by a college lecturer turned advocate related to a wrongful termination case.
The State Bar Council’s referral of the matter to its disciplinary committee was contested. The court found flaws in the recommendation to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee, highlighting the advocate’s role as an officer of the court.
Despite a convoluted history to the case, the court rejected the complainant’s argument that any advocate who signs an affidavit as an Advocate-on-Record is responsible for its factual accuracy.
The court cited Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clarifying that affidavits are limited to facts the deponent can personally prove.
The court also criticized the complainant’s argument for potentially undermining the legal profession by making Advocates-on-Record unwilling to sign any document.
While the court had the option to impose costs on the complainant, the advocate representing the government pleader chose not to press for costs. The court appreciated this decision as a display of the Bar’s finest traditions.
