Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently refused to show leniency in the case of an advocate whose license was suspended for 3 years over issuance of a fee notice of Rs.2.3 lakhs to a client who got motor accident compensation claim of Rs.5 lakhs.

The Court underlined the risk of poor people, seeking motor accident compensation claims, getting exploited by advocates' 'giroh' and opined that the petitioner's conduct of demanding fees depending on the MACT outcome amounted to 'gross misconduct'.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the petitioner-advocate's plea against a 5-year suspension imposed upon him by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. In a challenge, this suspension period had been reduced by the Bar Council of India to 3 years. Still aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

"You've sent a notice of fees of Rs.2,30,000 against a claim of Rs.5,00,000? How can you? Can the legal fees be [greater] than the outcome? Can it be? it's your own case before the Bar Council that on the outcome of the claim, you'll be entitled to claim fees...Gross Misconduct! The very fact that you issue a notice demanding fees depending on the outcome...we are proposing to give notice for enhancement...this is a man who has tried to cheat [a sister] out of her brother's compensation”, Justice Mehta posed to the petitioner's counsel.

“The BCI has already reduced the period to 3 years”, added Justice Nath.

When the petitioner's counsel pleaded for reduction of the suspension period, saying that the petitioner's career would be ruined if the punishment prevails, Justice Nath replied, "we don't know how many others you have cheated like this...complete misconduct”.

Although it was sought to be contended that there were other cases for which fee was due from the client's end and a consolidated amount was raised, the bench was not convinced. It also did not find ground to interfere on the petitioner's contention that he was proceeded ex-parte despite being present and denied opportunity to cross-examine.

"Lawyers need to get trained in discipline", said Justice Nath, before parting with the matter.

Appearance: Advocate Panchajanya Batra Singh and AoR Birajakanta Mahapatra (for petitioner)

Case Title: X Versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS.

Related - Lawyer's Claim For Fee Based On Percentage Of The Decretal Amount Is Misconduct And Cannot Be The Basis Of A Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act: SC