Cases on Professional Misconduct

1. Noratanmal Chaurasia vs. M.R. Murli (2004) 5 SCC 689– The

Supreme court has held that misconduct has not been defined in the
Advocates Act, 1966 but misconduct envisages breach of discipline,
although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to
what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline which however, is
wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether
done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.

2. Narain Pandey vs. Pannalal Pandey (2013) 11 SCC 435 – An

advocate who is found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without
authority and then filing false and fictitious compromises on behalf
of the client without any authority deserves punishment
proportionate to the degree of misconduct. Such punishment must
meet two objectives- deterrence and correction. The Court referred
to the Preamble of the BCI Rules- Chapter II while adjudging the
misconduct.
3. Shambhuram Yadav vs. Hanumandas Khatri AIR 2001 SC
2509- The lawyer suggested that his client give bribe to the judge
to get the suit decided in his favour. The Supreme Court held the
lawyer guilty of professional misconduct. (Violation of Rule 3 and 4
of BCI Rules- – Chapter II)
4. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kurapati Satyanarayana
AIR 2003 SC 178– Lawyer misappropriated his client’s money. BCI
acquitted him on the ground that there was no intention. Supreme
Court held this decision of BCI to be “unfounded and perverse” and
lacking the serious thought which was required to be given to the
disciplinary committee of the BCI in the discharge of quasi-judicial
functions while probing into such grave instances. (Rule 23 and 25
of the BCI Rules- Chapter II)
5. Harish Chandra Tiwari vs. Baiju 2002 (2) SCC
67- Misappropriation of client’s money is a grave misconduct to be
committed by a legal practitioner, and must be punished accordingly
under the Advocates Act. (Rule 23 and 25 of the BCI Rules- Chapter
II)
6. Smt. Siya Bai vs. Sita Ram BCI Tr. Case No. 8/1987– The
advocate withdrew the decretal amounts paid and did not make the
payment to the client, in violation of Rule 27 of the BCI Rules on
Professional Ethics. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India ordered the advocate to refund the money to the complainant
along with the 10% interest per annum and also ordered suspension
of advocate for a period of one year.
7. In Re: An Advocate vs. Unknown AIR 1961 Ker 209- It is the
imperative duty of the counsel on receipt of the client’s decretal
 money, to inform the client thereof and pay him without the amount
under receipt without any delay. The Kerala High Court suspended
the respondent for a period of six months, for non-fulfillment of this
duty under Rule 27 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
8. Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. V. Dabholkar and others AIR
1976 SC 242- The Bar Council functions in a dual capacity, one as
the prosecutor through its Executive Committee and the other
quasi-judicial performed through its Disciplinary Committee. Hence,
being the prosecutor, the State Bar Council would be an ‘aggrieved
person’ and therefore, the appeal under section 38 of the Advocates
Act, 1961 would be maintainable.
9. PD Khandekar vs Bar Council of Maharashtra 1984 SCR (1)
414- It is professionally improper for a member of the bar to
prepare false documents, or to draw pleadings knowing that the
allegations made are untrue to his knowledge. Thus, giving of
improper legal advice may amount to professional misconduct,
which may not be so by the giving of wrong legal advice. (Violation
of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules-Chapter II)
10. Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya AIR 1997 SC
864- The defendant assaulted his opponent with a knife. Prosecuted
under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Conviction
suspended on basis of a letter from the governor. Supreme Court
held that his conduct was such that his name should be removed
from the state role of advocates as he was unworthy of remaining in
the profession after the conviction. (Rule 7A of Chapter III of BCI
Rules)
11. NG Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde AIR 2001 SC
2028- Advocates kept seeking adjournments, and thus harassing
the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. Guilty of
misconduct. Court also analysed Section 35 of the Act and held that
the requirement of “reason to believe” cannot be converted into a
formalised procedural road block, it being essentially a barrier
against frivolous enquiries. Violation of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules-
Chapter II.
12. In Re: Tulsidas Amanmal Karani vs. Unknown AIR 1941
Bom 228 – Section 35 envisages not only ‘professional misconduct’
but also ‘other misconducts’, not defined in the Act. In case relating
to Indian Bar Councils Act 1926 the Court held that “any conduct
which in any way renders a man unfit for the exercise of his
profession or is ‘likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of
justice by this Court or any of the Courts subordinate thereto’ may
be considered to be misconduct calling for disciplinary action.”
13. Central Bureau of Hyderabad vs. K Narayan Rao (2012) 9
SCC 512 – For liability, there has to be moral delinquency. Mere
negligence sans moral delinquency will not suffice. If negligence is
 culpable nature, then it may lead to prof misconduct but not
necessarily criminal liability.
14. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45- Lawyers
have no right to strike, i.e. to abstain from appearing in the court in
cases in which they hold vakalat for the parties, even if it is in
response to or in compliance with a decision of any association or
body of lawyers.
15. Byram Pestonji Gariwal vs. Union Bank of India (1992) 1
SCC 31 – Supreme Court discussed the role of the counsel in
compromise of suit. It will be prudent for counsel not to act on
implied authority (given by vakalatnama) except when warranted by
the necessity of circumstances demanding immediate adjustment of
suit by agreement or compromise and the signature of the party
cannot be obtained without undue delay
16. Rajendra Pai vs. Alex Fernandes AIR 2002 SC 1808 – The
lawyer in a class action suit settled contingent fee depending on the
quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant; and that he
identified some claimants in opening a bank account wherein the
cheque for the awarded amount of compensation was lodged and
then the amount withdrawn which identification was later on found
to be false. Held guilty of misconduct (as in violation of Rule 20 of
the BCI Rules of Conduct) and suspended for seven years.
17. R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264
– The advocate does not have a lien for his fees on the litigation
papers entrusted to him by his client.
18. Virendra Kumar Gupta vs. Anil Kumar Jain –The lawyer in
connivance with the other party, deliberately and intentionally did
not appear in the execution proceedings of his client, which were
therefore dismissed in default. The lawyer did not serve the interest
of his client and in fact acted against his interest. Guilty of
misconduct under Rule 5 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
19. Joginder Singh vs BCI AIR 1975 Delhi 192 – Advocate had
concealed facts about his conviction under Section 473 of IPC and
the fact that he was out on bail. Given the high standards expected
of those in the legal profession, it would definitely be a
fraud/misrepresentation if the concerned advocate does not disclose
the fact of his previous conviction, especially those involving moral
turpitude as they help ascertain the character of a man. (Violation of
Rule 43 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II)
20. Surendra Nath Mittal vs. Daya Nand Swaroop BCI Tr. Case
No. 63 / 1987. – The advocate made manipulation in the operative
part of the judgement and decree by adding the words “mai sood”
i.e. including interest. Disciplinary committee held him guilty of
professional misconduct. (Violation of Rule 1 and 2 of the BCI Rules-
Chapter II)
21. Vikramaditya vs. Smt. Jamila Khatoon D.C. Appeal No.
21/1996 – The obtaining of the signature by the advocate on blank
vakalatnama and blank watermarked papers for the purpose of
defrauding the client’s amounts to the professional misconduct
under Rule 15 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
22. Allahabad Bank vs. Girish Prasad Verma BCI Tr. Case No.
49/1993 – The advocate did not file, rather, misappropriated the
sum paid to him by the client for the purpose of court fees (in
violation of Rule 23 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II). U.P Bar Council
disciplinary committee held him guilty of professional misconduct.
23. Babu Lal Jain v. Subhash Jain BCI Tr. Case No. 115 /
1996- The complainant alleged that the respondent advocate was a
practising lawyer as well as was working as an editor, printer, and
publisher of a weekly paper. Rule 47 of BCI rules prohibits an
advocate to be engaged personally in any business. The respondent
advocate was found to have been actively engaged in carrying on
the business and his conduct was taken by the disciplinary
committee as professional misconduct.
24. John D’souza v. Edward Ani 1994 SCC (2) 64 The lawyer
refused to return the will he executed, in spite of two letters
demanding to hand over the will. The Supreme Court held that the
advocate has committed breach of his professional duty and found
him guilty of profession misconduct. (Violation of Rule 15 of the BCI
Rules- Chapter II)
25. V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan 1979 SCR (1) 1054- The
lawyer failed to disclose the conflicting interests to client, and also
betrayed the trust reposed in him by the client, hence violating Rule
24 of the BCI Rules of Professional Ethics. The lawyer was
suspended for one year.