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 of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 states "An Attorney-at-Law must not conduct himself in any manner which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by Attorneys-at-Law of good repute and competency or which would render him unfit to remain an Attorney-at-Law or which is inexcusable and such as to be regarded as deplorable by his fellows in profession."

2. Rule 61 states "An Attorney-at-Law shall not conduct himself in any manner unworthy of an Attorney-at-Law."

3. In terms of section 40 of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court admits and enrolls as Attorneys-at-Law only persons of good

repute and competent knowledge and ability. Such Attorneys-at-Law are entitled by law to assist and advise clients and to appear for them in every court. The public expects that Attorneys-at-Law will fulfil their professional obligations to the best of their ability.

4. Section 42 of the Judicature Act entrusts the Supreme Court with the responsibility of maintaining the standard required of Attorneys- at-Law and vests with it the power to suspend from practice or remove from office any Attorney-at-Law who is found guilty of deceit or malpractice.

5. The acts/misconduct of the Attorney-at-Law concerned have been proved to the satisfaction of the court to amount to acts of deceit and/or malpractice as contemplated in section 42(2) of the Judicature Act.

6. The Attorney-at-Law has not shown repentance or remorse over his misconduct. He did not think it important to appear before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka which conducted the initial inquiry.

7. The Supreme Court has a duty to take into consideration the interests and aspirations of the general public, in particular litigants, and the need to maintain the quality of the administration of justice and the standards expected from members of the legal fraternity when deciding the course of action to be taken in a case of this nature.

8. Suspension of seven years and payment of Rs.300,000 to the complainant ordered.

Cases referred to :

1. Daniel v. Chandradewa [1994] 2 Sri LR 1

2. Piyadasa v. Kurukulasuriya, Attorney-at-Law [1997] 2 Sri LR 410

RULE against an Attorney-at-Law.

Dr. Avanthi Perera, S.S.C., with Sureka Ahmad, S.C., for the Attorney General.

Rohan Sahabandu, P.C., for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

Respondent Wasantha Wijewardena, Attorney-at-Law, appeared in person.

cur. adv. vult.

September 25, 2020

SURASENA, J.

Upon a Complaint against the Respondent Attorney-at-Law made to this Court by the Complainant, this Court served a copy of the said complaint on the Respondent Attorney-at-Law and called for his observations thereon. Thereafter, this Court referred the said co