1954 (5) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Mr. G's agreement with his client amounts to professional misconduct.
2. Applicability of the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926, to the case.
3. Distinction between Barristers and other classes of lawyers regarding professional conduct.
4. Relevance of foreign (American) practices to Indian legal ethics.

Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Mr. G's agreement with his client amounts to professional misconduct:

The core issue is whether Mr. G's engagement on 20th December 1952, where he agreed to take 50% of the recoveries from the client's claim against Baroda Theaters Ltd., constitutes professional misconduct. The facts are undisputed and admitted by Mr. G. The court emphasized that the special and rigid rules of professional conduct expected of advocates, who are considered "officers and gentlemen," must be maintained to uphold the integrity, dignity, and honor of the legal profession. The court noted that while such agreements might be legally unobjectionable if no lawyer was involved, the high standards of professional conduct required of advocates make such agreements impermissible. The court referenced historical precedents condemning similar agreements across various High Courts in India, including Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.

2. Applicability of the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926, to the case:

Mr. G argued that section 3 of the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926, allowed legal practitioners to settle the terms of their engagement and fees by private agreement with their clients, thus making such agreements permissible. However, the court clarified that this Act is not concerned with professional misconduct, which is governed by the Bar Councils Act of the same year. The Bar Councils Act did not modify the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Courts or the understanding of professional misconduct that had been established in India up to that time.

3. Distinction between Barristers and other classes of lawyers regarding professional conduct:

The court examined whether different rules applied to Barristers and other classes of lawyers. It referenced the Punjab Full Bench decision in Ganga Ram v. Devi Das, which rejected the notion of different standards for Barristers and other lawyers. The court agreed with the majority view that the same high standards of professional conduct apply to all advocates, irrespective of their status as Barristers. The court cited various judgments to support this uniform application of professional conduct rules.

4. Relevance of foreign (American) practices to Indian legal ethics:

Mr. G relied on practices in some American states where attorneys are permitted to purchase part of the subject matter of litigation. The court noted that what may be permissible in one country may not be appropriate in another. It referenced American authorities to show that even in the U.S., such practices are often regretted and frowned upon. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards in India, where ignorance and illiteracy are prevalent, and concluded that importing such practices would be a mistake.

Conclusion:

The court held that Mr. G's conduct amounted to professional misconduct, particularly in light of the established view of the Bombay High Court. Given Mr. G's personal attacks on the Chief Justice in his petition under Article 32, the court decided to impose a suspension. Mr. G was suspended from practicing in the Supreme Court for a period that would expire on the same date as his suspension in the Bombay High Court. No order was made regarding costs.

Order:

Mr. G is suspended from practicing in the Supreme Court until the expiry of his suspension period in the Bombay High Court. No order as to costs.