A. L. Shiran Gooneratne J.

1. This matter arises pursuant to a letter dated 09/01/2008 addressed to the Honourable Chief Justice by Major W. W. M. L. S. Palipana (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant), requesting an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Wasantha Wijewardane, Attorney-at-Law (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), in relation to a professional retainer.

2. The Complainant, by letter dated 27/02/2008, along with his Affidavit and other documents, alleged that the Respondent was retained to take necessary legal steps to implement the decisions of the Supreme Court dated 01/03/2006 and 15/02/2007 in SC (FR) 68/2006. An advance payment of Rs. 50,000 was made on 09/11/2007, being half of the agreed fee of Rs. 100,000. However, due to repeated inaction and evasive conduct by the Respondent, the Complainant on 05/12/2007, requested the Respondent that the matter need not be pursued further and sought the return of his documents and fees.

3. Following further correspondence and a meeting in mid-December 2007, the Complainant was handed a draft Petition which he deemed untimely and ineffective. He subsequently returned the draft and reiterated his request for a refund via letter dated 20/12/2007. The Respondent failed to respond or refund the fees, prompting the Complainant to allege professional misconduct and unjust enrichment.

4. In pursuance of the said complaint, and in accordance with the Journal Entry dated 05/03/2008, this Court directed that observations be called from the Respondent. The Respondent, by observations tendered on or about 30/05/2008, admitted having been retained by the Complainant and acknowledged the receipt of professional fees. However, the Respondent sought to justify his conduct by reference to the proposed legal strategy, certain fee adjustments, and the alleged involvement of Mr. Chula Bandara, Attorney-at-Law.

5. The Respondent expressly denied the existence of any professional arrangement with Mr. Bandara and further asserted that the draft petition prepared by him was legally viable, notwithstanding the Complainant’s dissatisfaction or concerns expressed thereon.

6. The matter was thereafter referred to Disciplinary Committee No. 5 of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, in terms of the Journal Entry dated 08/07/2008. Pursuant thereto, by letter dated 26/08/2008, the Registrar requested the said Committee to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 43(1) of the Judicature Act, and to submit its proceedings together with a report to this Court within a period of three months.

7. At the said inquiry, the Respondent initially conceded to refund the monies received from the Complainant; however, the actual payment was unduly delayed. Owing to repeated absence and postponements on the part of the Respondent, the refund was ultimately affected only in July, 2009. Notwithstanding such payment, the matter concerning the three case files, which remained unreturned by the Respondent, continued unresolved.

8. Upon conclusion of its proceedings, the Disciplinary Committee, by recommendation dated 01/02/2014, submitted its findings to the Honourable Chief Justice to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the Respondent. The Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Respondent has “not performed his professional obligations towards his client in a diligent manner and has been negligent in misplacing his client’s documents handed over to him which has resulted in grave inconvenience, prejudice and loss to the Complainant in not being able to obtain the redress that he was seeking to obtain before a court of law.”

9. Careful consideration of the material placed by the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Disciplinary Committee, disclosed that the Respondent’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and wholly unbecoming of an Attorney-at-Law. The Respondent’s actions amounted to deceit, malpractice, crime or offence, and conducted himself in a manner unworthy of an Attorney-at-Law. He conducted