K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J

1.This rule stems from the complaint made by Kodagodage Tissa de Silva (complainant) against Warnakulasuriya Kalugamage Nimalka Sudharshani Fernando Attorney-at-Law (respondent) stating that the respondent has prepared and attested two forged deeds.

2. In his affidavit dated 13th January 2022, the complainant deposed that the property (subject matter involved in this matter) was purchased by him in 1992 by deed No. 204 attested by K.D.P. Jayaweera Notary Public. He has donated the said land to his son Kodagodage Chamith Dushantha Lankathilaka de Silva by deed No. 2902 attested by A.A.Basheer Ahamed on 23.04.2006.

3. To avoid the said son Lankathilaka from selling the property, he has written a deed of cancellation of the said deed No. 2902, by deed No.309 attested by Notary B.M.S.S. Balasuriya dated 07.09.2012.

4. The complaint of the complainant is that after the cancellation of the deed No. 2902, upon which Lankathilaka gained the title to the property, without carrying out a search in the land registry, the respondent Attorney-at-Law has attested the deed No. 169 by which the said Lankathilaka has transferred a portion of the land to his son Chamod Bhagya Lankathilake who was a minor.

5. In response to the above complaint, the respondent has stated that she has attested two deeds numbered 169 and 167 whereby the said Dushantha Lankathilaka donated a portion of the land to his son and sold the other potion to his mother who is the estranged wife of the complainant. It is her position that, the parties never wanted a search to be carried out at the land registry and that the vendee in deed No. 167 has given her written instructions to dispense with the search. It is the position of the respondent that she has acted in the best interest of her clients and has in no way breached any rules pertaining to the conduct of an Attorney-at-Law.

6. This Court issued a rule dated 15t December 2022 against the respondent alleging,

a) That you committed deceit and or malpractice within the ambit of section 42(2) of the Judicature Act (read with Rule 79 of Supreme Court Rules 1978) which rendered you unfit to remain as an Attorney-at-Law.

b) By reason of the aforesaid Act, you have conducted yourself in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonorable of Attorneys-at-Law of good repute and competency and have thus committed a breach of Rule No. 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorneys at Law) Rules of 1988 made under Article 136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

c) By reason of the aforesaid acts and conduct, you have conducted yourself in a manner unworthy of an Attorney- at-Law and have thus committed a breach of Rule No. 61 of the said Rules.

7. Upon pleading not guilty to the above allegations, the respondent Attorney-at-Law filed an affidavit dated 27 January 2023 to show cause why she should not be suspended or removed from office. It is the contention of the respondent that, the complainant has not made any allegations against her arising from an Attorney and Client relationship. There had been no such relationship between the complainant and respondent Attorney- at-Law. Her professional relationship as an Attorney and client had been with I.S.S. Preethika Fernando and her son K. Chamith Dushantha Lankathilaka. It was upon their request that the deeds No. 167 and No. 169 had been prepared and attested by the respondent. In deed No. 167, the said Lankathilaka De Silva has sold a portion of the land that he obtained in terms of Deed No. 2902. The balance portion of the said land was donated by Lankathilaka to his son Chamod Bhagya Lankathilkaka de Silva by deed No. 169 reserving life interest to himself and his wife Rasanjalee Priyadarshani. The vendee of Deed No. 167 has given written instructions to the respondent Attorney-at-Law to dispense with the search. It is the position of the respondent that, she attested both the deeds in good