There was a road accident in which an illiterate peasant was killed. X, an advocate rushes to the scene of accident and takes the thumb impressions of the deceased's wife on vakalat giving the case to him, saying that it was necessary formality and that he would get her some money. Later another advocate Y approaches her and cooly explains about motor vehicle accidents and compensation and takes vakalat. Now the two advocates clash in the Bar on who should represent her. Discuss legal, ethical and other aspects of the issue.

 

Issue:

1. Whether the acts of advocate X and Y are valid? NO

2. Whether such acts amounts to professional misconduct? YES

Rule:

Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The canons of ethics and propriety fat the legal profession totally taboo conduct by way of soliciting, advertising. Scrambling and other obnoxious practices, subtle or clumsy for betterment of legal business. Law is not trade, briefs no merchandise and so the leaven of commercial competition or procurement should not vulgarise the legal profession. Snatching briefs by standing at the door of the Court house and in fighting for this purpose is too dishonorable, disgraceful and unbecoming to be approved even for other professions.

Application:

This problem is related to the 'brief snatching'. Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs M.V. Dabholkar etc. AIR 1976 SC 242, the Respondents, who were lawyers practicing in criminal Courts, were charged with professional misconduct under Section 35 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, in that they positioned themselves at the entrance to the Magistrates' Courts, watchful of the arrival of potential litigants and at sight, rushed towards the clients in an ugly scrimmage to snatch the briefs. To lay claim to the engagements even by physical fight to undercut fees, and by this unedifying exhibition sometimes carried even into the bar library, solicited and secured work for themselves. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council held the Respondents guilty of professional misconduct and suspended them from practicing as advocates for a period of three years.

Conclusion:

In this instant problem, the acts of advocate X and Y are not valid and ethical, such acts amount to professional misconduct. Thus, snatching and fighting and like solicitation exercises indulged in by any of the Respondents, such conduct is in gross breach of professional behavior and invites punishment. 

Enable GingerCannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable in this text fieldRephraseRephrase current sentenceEdit in Ginger×