2001 (7) TMI 1186 - SC - Companies Law

Misconduct of profession - Held that - Appeal allowed. It is evident that the earlier Committee, on consideration of all relevant facts, came to the conclusion that the advocate was not worthy of remaining in the profession. The age factor and the factor of number of years put in by the respondent were taken into consideration by the Committee when removal from the roll of the State Council was directed. It is evident that the Bar Council considered that a high standard of morality is required from lawyers, more so from a person who has put in 50 years in profession. One expects from such a person a very high standard of morality and unimpeachable sense of legal and ethical propriety. Since the Bar Councils under the Act have been entrusted with the duty of guarding the professional ethics, they have to be more sensitive to the potential disrepute on account of action of a few black sheeps which may shake the credibility of the profession, and thereby put at stake other members of the Bar. Considering these factors, the Bar Council had inflicted in its earlier order the condign penalty. Under these circumstances no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 4-6-2000, and restoring the original order of the Bar Council of India dated 31-7-1999.

Summary

Issues:
Misconduct by an advocate in writing a letter to a client involving bribery allegations; Appropriate disciplinary action by Bar Councils; Review of disciplinary orders by Disciplinary Committees.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of misconduct by an advocate who wrote a letter to a client involving bribery allegations. The advocate requested money from the client to influence a judge in a pending suit. The State Bar Council found the advocate guilty of misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, and suspended him for two years. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India enhanced the punishment, permanently debarring the advocate from practice. However, a review petition was filed, and the Disciplinary Committee modified the punishment to a reprimand, citing the advocate's age and past clean record. The Supreme Court noted that the original order had been reviewed on non-existent grounds and reinstated the Bar Council of India's original order permanently debarring the advocate. The Court emphasized the duty of Bar Councils to uphold professional ethics and ensure the credibility of the legal profession. The judgment highlights the importance of imposing appropriate penalties for serious misconduct to maintain the reputation of the legal profession.

The judgment underscores that the legal profession is a noble one, and advocates have a duty to uphold ethical standards and ensure justice for their clients. The Court emphasized that disciplinary bodies, such as Bar Councils, play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession by imposing suitable penalties for misconduct. The judgment also highlights the significance of age and experience in assessing misconduct by legal professionals. It stresses that high moral standards are expected from advocates, especially those with extensive experience in the profession. The Court reinstated the original disciplinary order debarring the advocate permanently, emphasizing the need for Bar Councils to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession and uphold ethical standards. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability and ethical conduct in the legal profession to preserve public trust and confidence in the administration of justice.