Professional Misconduct Under The Advocates Act
Professional Misconduct Under The Advocates Act
Professional Misconduct Under The Advocates Act
Misconduct means any acts which are unlawful in nature even though they are
not inherently wrongful. Before the Advocates Act, 1961, we had the Legal
Practitioners Act, 1879. There is no definition given for the term ‘misconduct’ in
the Act, but the term ‘unprofessional conduct’ is being used in the Act. Some of
the instances of professional misconduct are as follows:
Dereliction of duty
Professional negligence
Misappropriation
Changing sides
Contempt of court and improper behaviour before a Magistrate
Furnishing false information
Giving improper advice
Misleading the clients in court
Not speaking the truth
Disowning allegiance to the court
Moving application without informing that a similar application has been rejected
by another authority
Suggesting to bribe the court officials
Forcing the prosecution witness not to say the truth.
There are many other landmark judgments regarding the cases involving
professional misconduct of the advocates. In the case of V.C. Rangadurai v.
D.Gopalan[7], the court looked into the matter of professional misconduct in
such a way that the decision was made in a humanitarian manner, considering
the future of the accused in this case. The court held that “even so justice has a
correctional edge, a socially useful function, especially if the delinquent is too
old to be pardoned and too young to be disbarred. Therefore, a curative, not
cruel punishment has to be delivered in the social setting of the legal
profession”. The court then gave the decision in such a way that it looked at
each and every aspect concerning the case as well as the parties concerned. It
adopted a deterrent was of justice mechanism so that the accused person is
awarded certain punishments but also provided a warning towards such other
people who intend to commit acts of a similar nature. The judgment turned out
to be a landmark in cases concerning professional misconduct as it delivered an
effective judgment and but did not jeopardize the future of the accused person.
In various other cases like J.S. Jadhav v. Musthafa Haji Muhammed Yusuf[8],
the court delivered the decision in such a way that it created a notion in the
minds of the wrongdoers that offenders will be punished accordingly.
Conclusion
From the analysis of various cases and certain facts and circumstances, it will
be clear that unlike any other profession, advocacy is regarded as a noble
profession and professional ethics must be maintained. Courts have dealt with
various cases of professional misconduct wherein attempt of murder by the
advocate towards his client have also been reported. Hence, there must be
interference from concerned authorities so that persons with a criminal
background are kept away from this profession. Even though there are
guidelines dealing with the social background of the person enrolling in this
profession, i.e. the person enrolling must be free from any criminal cases, it
does not prove that the person has a criminal nature of his own. So Bar Council
can implement certain rules and regulation so that the conduct of the person
who is showing criminal behaviour can be controlled strict guidelines ensuring
that the person no longer acts unlawfully against his profession. There must be
various career guidance and development programs conducted by the Bar
Council immediately after enrolment so that new legal professionals they will be
aware of the do’s and don’t of this profession and there will be a better group of
advocates in the coming decades.