Back
1929 Supreme(SC) 109
Privy Council At Allahabad
Son Binod Mitter, Sir Lancelot Sanderson , Justice Lord Tomlin, JJ.
A, a Pleader of Agra -Appellant
Versus
Judges of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 99 of 1928
Decided On : 13-12-1929
Important Points
Subject
Professional Ethics - Professional Misconduct
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Professional Misconduct - Acting for a party against a former client - Where the presiding officer of the court approves the course and there is a declaration that no conflict of interest exists, such conduct, while potentially unwise, may not amount to "grossly improper conduct" under the Act. (Para 22)
(C) Professional Misconduct - Charges of financial irregularity - Charges framed in vague terms and unsupported by sufficient evidence cannot be sustained. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
A legal practitioner serving as standing counsel for a company under an exclusive retainer, which included an agreement not to provide advice or conduct cases against the company, accepted a brief and facilitated the filing of a suit by debenture-holders against the same company while the retainer was still in effect. The practitioner was also accused of acting for a plaintiff in another suit where the company was a defendant and of using his position as legal adviser to force the company to pay an exorbitant fee.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the practitioner was guilty of professional misconduct for acting against the company while under an exclusive retainer. However, it held that acting for a plaintiff in a separate suit where the company was virtually a co-plaintiff did not amount to "grossly improper conduct" given the circumstances. The charge regarding the forced fee was dismissed as the evidence was insufficient and the charge was vaguely framed.
Issues: Whether acting for an opposing party while under an exclusive retainer, and acting for a plaintiff in a suit where the client is a defendant, constitutes "grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty" under the Legal Practitioners Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A legal adviser who accepts a brief for a party opposing their current client while an exclusive retainer is still active violates the principles governing the conduct of a legal professional and the ordinary principles of good faith. Such conduct is irregular in form and improper in substance, constituting "grossly improper conduct" within the meaning of the Act.
Result: Order varied.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
professional ethics
-
professional misconduct
- conflict of interest
- duty of good faith
- disciplinary proceedings
-
professional misconduct
-
professional ethics
India Office, T.L. Wilson and Co., E.B. Raikes, L.De Gruyther , W. Wallach , A.M. Dunne
Lord Tomlin:-
This an appeal from an order dated 23rd January 1928, of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad whereby the appellant, a pleader practising at Agra, was suspended from practice for four years from the date of the order on the ground that he was guilty of professional misconduct in respect of three out of six matters charged against him.
The order was made after enquiry and report by the District Judge of Agra under S. 14, Legal Practitioners Act (18 of 1879). This jurisdiction of the High Court to suspend or otherwise punish a pleader practising in any subordinate Court arises after report by the presiding officer of such subordinate Court that the pleader has been guilty of any of the offences mentioned in S. 13 of the Act. These offences include fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty.
Of the six charges made against the appellant, the three upon which the High Court found him guilty were as follows :
"(1) That having been standing counsel of the Agra United Mills, Limited, employed by Kunwar Ganesh Sinha since 25th April 1925, on 27th May 1927, you filed a vakalatnama on behalf of Major A. U. John, a plaintiff in Suit No. 126 of 1926 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Agra, against Kunwar Ganesh Sinha, the Agra United Mills Limited, and other defendants.
"(2) That having been standing counsel of the Agra United Mills, Limited, for over six years under an agreement not to give advice or to conduct case against the Mills, and having obtained an increment to your retainer on the express undertaking that you would not appear for Messrs. John against the Mills, you advised Messrs. John in preparing their Case No. 84 of 1927, against the Mills, and you got your junior, Mr. Baboo Lall, to file the plaint.
"(6) That in Suit No. 126 of 1926, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Agra, you made an unfair use of your position as legal adviser of the Agra United Mills, Limited, and forced the Mills to agree to give you a fee of Rs. 12,000. That you did nothing for the Mills except to file your vakalatnama."
At the end of the hearing before their Lordships' Board, their Lordships being of opinion that the first and sixth charges had not been made out, but that the second charge was established, intimated that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the suspension should cease as from 22nd November 1929.
It is now necessary for their Lordships to give the reasons which led them to this conclusion.
For this purpose a statement of the relevant facts is required.
In 1920, Messrs. John Bros., the owners of a mill at Agra sold the mill to the
Agra United Mills Company, Limited. The sum of Rs. 50,0000, the purchase price or part of the purchase price, was satisfied by the issue to the vendors of debentures of the company. There was a debenture trust deed, of which Messrs. John Bros., were the trustees.
In January 1921, the appellant was appointed standing counsel of the company. He also from time to time acted on behalf of Messrs. John Bros. Their Lordships are satisfied that both the company and Messrs. John Bros., were fully aware of the appellant's position and that neither of them raised any objection to it.
On 31st January 1924, the appellant wrote to the company a letter setting out what he described as "the terms we settled the other day about my fees, etc., for Court cases.” The letter was not answered, but their Lordships are satisfied that in subsequent transactions fees were paid by the company to the appellant upon the basis of the terms set out in the letter.
In 1924 a suit was launched by or in the name of the company against the debenture holders, attacking the validity of the debentures. The suit was dismissed by consent on 28th May 1925. It does not appear that the appellant had any part on either side in this suit, but it may have brought to his mind the possibility of conflict between the respective interests of the company and Messrs. John Bros.
At any ra
