Back
'Pernicious Conduct': Kerala HC Slaps ₹50K Costs on Lawyers for Stalling Client's Decree Over Fees
In a stern rebuke to intra-bar squabbles spilling into court corridors, the dismissed a writ petition by two advocates who tried to freeze execution proceedings in a land acquisition case until their fee claims were settled. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas imposed ₹50,000 costs, payable to the , calling the move an unethical bid to "blackmail" former clients. The ruling, delivered on April 8, 2026, underscores that no lawyer can hold a client's case hostage over payment disputes.
From Land Compensation Win to Fee Firefight
The saga traces back to Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No. 302/1988 before the . Claimants Rosy Stephen and Angel Stephen secured an award, leading to Execution Petition (EP) No. 140/2013. Petitioner-advocate Mary Help John David J claimed she guided the case from 2004, took vakalath in 2017 after a colleague's relinquishment, and deserved fees for decades of effort. Alongside petitioner K.V. Krishnakumar, they accused new lawyers J.V. Anoop and Pradeep Alfred of fraudulently filing vakalath on October 10, 2024, without a No Objection Certificate (NOC), enabling claimants to encash cheques.
Tensions boiled post-award deposit: Petitioners said claimants collected but didn't honor cheque applications for fees. Claimants countered they'd paid over ₹25 lakhs via bank transfers (evidenced by Ext.R4(a)), faced harassment for an exorbitant ₹1 crore demand, and lost trust when the first petitioner subcontracted without consent. An affidavit explained the switch to the executing court, which accepted the new vakalath and allowed disbursement—prompting petitioners' complaints to the Chief Justice, , District Judge, and .
By late 2024, petitioners filed EA No. 829/2024 to halt proceedings, but the writ under sought declarations invalidating the counsel change, status quo on execution, fee adjudication via bar bodies, and return of "illegally encashed" funds. Media reports, echoing the judgment, highlighted how this stalled claimants' access to funds for nearly 10 months.
Petitioners' Plea: 'Fraud and Looting Our Sweat'
Petitioners painted a picture of betrayal: They'd nurtured the case for years, secured the award, and prepared fee cheques that claimants misused via "snatched" vakalath. They urged writ intervention to void the new lawyers' entry sans NOC, stay execution till Bar Council resolved complaints against respondents 1 and 2 for unethical poaching, and affirm their fee lien. Forcing civil suit recovery, they argued, was "unethical arrogance" looting their "hard-earned efforts."
Claimants and New Counsel Counter: 'Harassment, Not Heroics'
Respondents 1 and 2 denied inducement, asserting clients' absolute right to revoke vakalath and engage fresh counsel post-trust erosion. Claimants detailed payments exceeding ₹25 lakhs, refusal to proceed without ₹1 crore, threats, and unauthorized subcontracting—compelling the switch. The executing court () endorsed the change via affidavit under , releasing funds lawfully. Fee disputes belonged in civil court, not writ jurisdiction, they stressed.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Ethics Over Entitlements
Justice Thomas dissected the malaise: Disputes over private fee claims aren't justiciable under ; civil courts handle them. Citing Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education (2025), he noted fair fees sustain profession dignity—but only against state, not extendable to private litigants amid contest.
loomed large: No contingency fees (), post-termination deductions only from client funds in hand (). Stalling proceedings? An "affront to nobility." demands fearless client advocacy, not post-termination sabotage.
Drawing from R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264, the court equated withholding files or halting cases to a doctor denying records for unpaid bills—impermissible. Litigants' freedom to switch counsel (; Civil Rules Rule 28) prevails, even sans NOC via court nod. O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2011) reinforced fiduciary trust, diligence, and anti-exploitation duties.
No advocate
"steps into the client's shoes"
or claims perpetual engagement. Pernicious? Absolutely—blackmailing via proceedings tears the "facade of nobility."
Key Observations That Echo Across the Bar
"A pernicious conduct of a member of the legal profession, attempting to stall a decree holder from enjoying the fruits of a decree, until his claim for legal fees is settled..."
"There cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be a situation where the litigant is pushed to a corner or blackmailed into paying the fee demanded by the Advocate. Even worse is the situation when the Advocate, after termination of his engagement, attempts to stall the very proceeding..."
"Even if it is assumed... that petitioners are correct about the unpaid fee, still, an Advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his claim for fee is settled."
"The legal profession is undoubtedly a noble profession. Its nobility is however determined by the persons adorning the black robes."
Gavel Falls: Petition Dismissed, Costs to Curb Recklessness
The writ stands dismissed. Petitioners must pay ₹50,000 costs within six weeks, or face recovery. Implications ripple: Reinforces client autonomy in counsel choice, channels fee rows to civil fora or Bar Councils for misconduct probes, and warns against writ misuse to pressure ex-clients. As media like
The Indian Express
noted, it's a wake-up call—
"a lawyer’s role is to represent, not to own the litigation."
Future cases may cite this to nix similar stalls, safeguarding justice's flow.
