KARUNARATNE BANDA

VS.

WIJEWARDENA

SUPREME COURT
MALALGODA, J.
SURASENA, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/RULE/8/2014
FEBRUARY 2, 3, 2020

Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988, rules 10, 15, 16, 60, 61 and 62-Judicature Act, sections 40,42 and 43-Enrolment, suspension and removal of Attorney-at-Law- Disgraceful, dishonourable, deplorable and unworthy conduct-Deceit and malpractice-Absence of remorse

The respondent Attorney-at-Law was retained by the complainant to file a fundamental rights application and the full professional fee was paid. On the date fixed for support of the application, a postponement was sought and granted by court. On the next date fixed for support, there was no appearance and the court dismissed the application. Three months after the said dismissal, a relisting application was filed. The court rejected it due to laches. The complainant complained to the Supreme Court against the Attorney-at-Law. A Rule was issued against the Attorney-at-Law to show cause as to why he should not be suspended from practice or removed from the office of Attorney-at-Law.

Held :

1. Rule 60 of the Supreme Court {Conduct