Professional deviance and the legal profession: the Bar Council's disciplinary committees

1. Professional deviance

A profession has three features: specialised knowledge acquired by long training, a monopoly granted by law (only an enrolled advocate may practise, only a registered doctor may prescribe), and an ethical code that puts the client's and the public's interest above self-interest. Professional deviance is the violation of that code by a member of the profession, through the skill and the trust the profession gives him. It is privileged class deviance because the professional's status, expertise and monopoly protect him: the client cannot judge the quality of the service, and fellow professionals are reluctant to complain.

Forms in the legal profession:

• misappropriation of clients' money or decretal amounts;
• taking money from the client on the pretext of bribing a judge, an officer or the opposite party's advocate;
• appearing for both sides, or for the opposite party after taking the client's confidence;
• touting and advertising, contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules;
• filing false cases, forging documents, tutoring and buying witnesses;
• negligence and abandoning the client's case; retaining the brief for unpaid fees;
• contemptuous behaviour towards judges, and strikes that paralyse courts;
• conduct outside the profession that shows unfitness, such as a conviction for a serious offence.

2. The disciplinary committees

• Constitution (section 9). Every Bar Council constitutes one or more disciplinary committees of three persons: two elected by the Council from among its members, and one co-opted from advocates qualified to be members (ten years' standing) who are not members of the Council. The senior-most advocate among them is the Chairman.
• Reference (section 35(1)). Where on a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that an advocate on its roll is guilty of “professional or other misconduct”, it refers the case to its disciplinary committee. The committee may summarily reject a complaint without substance, or hear it.
• Hearing and orders (section 35(3)). After hearing the advocate and the Advocate-General, it may dismiss the complaint, reprimand the advocate, suspend him from practice for a period, or remove his name from the roll. A suspended advocate cannot practise anywhere in India during suspension.
• Powers (section 42). The powers of a civil court to summon witnesses, require documents, receive evidence on affidavit and issue commissions; its proceedings are judicial proceedings for the purposes of the offences of false evidence and insult to a public servant.
• Time limit (section 36B). The State committee must conclude the matter within one year, failing which it is transferred to the Bar Council of India.
• Bar Council of India (section 36). Its disciplinary committee hears cases against advocates not on any State roll, and may withdraw a pending case from a State committee.
• Appeals. To the Bar Council of India within sixty days (section 37), and then to the Supreme Court within sixty days (section 38). Review by the committee itself within sixty days (section 44).

3. Importance of the opinions of the BCI's disciplinary committee

The syllabus asks for the “opinions” of the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee: its decisions on appeal, which become the working law of professional ethics. Their importance:

• They give content to the undefined term “misconduct” by deciding concrete cases: what is touting, when acceptance of a brief is improper, when an advocate's private conduct is misconduct.
• They set the scale of punishment, so that like cases are treated alike.
• They interpret the Bar Council of India Rules (Part VI, Chapter II, standards of professional conduct and etiquette), framed under section 49(1)(c).
• They are reviewed by the Supreme Court under section 38, so the line of authority runs from the State committee through the BCI to the Court.

Leading decisions

• V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, 1978 INSC 194, (1979) 1 SCC 308: an advocate who misled elderly clients by pretending to file a suit and kept the money was guilty of gross misconduct; Krishna Iyer J. reduced the punishment with an emphasis on reformation and directed compensation to the clients.
• Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, 2001 INSC 318, (2001) 6 SCC 1: an advocate wrote to his client demanding ten thousand rupees to bribe the presiding judge. The State Bar Council suspended him for two years; the BCI removed his name from the roll, then on review reduced it to a reprimand. The Supreme Court held the review unjustified and restored permanent removal: the misconduct struck at the administration of justice.
• In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1995 INSC 179, (1995) 2 SCC 584, and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998 INSC 183, (1998) 4 SCC 409: a senior advocate was punished for contempt for browbeating a High Court judge; in the later case the Court held that suspension of the licence to practise is for the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, not for the Court in contempt jurisdiction.
• Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 2002 INSC 523, (2003) 2 SCC 45: lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts; courts may refuse to let an advocate who is guilty of contempt appear before them.
• R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 2009 INSC 959, (2009) 8 SCC 106: senior counsel caught in a sting operation trying to influence a prosecution witness was held guilty of contempt and barred from appearing in the Delhi High Court and its subordinate courts for a period.

4. Problem (January 2026)

A junior advocate took money from his client to pay a bribe to a doctor to obtain a medical certificate. The client complains to the State Bar Council. Advise the complainant.

Issue. Whether taking money from a client to bribe a third person, to obtain a false or favourable certificate, is professional or other misconduct, and what remedies the complainant has.

Law. Section 35 of the Advocates Act; the BCI Rules requiring an advocate to uphold the dignity of the profession and not to use illegal or improper means; Shambhu Ram Yadav. Criminally, section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (giving an undue advantage to a public servant, if the doctor is in government service), abetment under section 12, and cheating or criminal breach of trust under sections 318 and 316 of the BNS if the money was not used as told.

Application. The advocate's duty is to the client and to the administration of justice. Collecting money for a bribe is misconduct whether or not the bribe was paid: if paid, he has corrupted a public servant and procured false evidence; if kept, he has cheated the client. That he is a junior is no excuse. The complainant should file a complaint with the State Bar Council under section 35 supported by an affidavit and the evidence of payment; the disciplinary committee will hear both sides and may suspend or remove the advocate. The complainant should note that he too may be exposed: a client who knowingly paid money for bribery is himself an abettor, unless he was compelled and reported it within seven days under the proviso to section 8.

Conclusion. The complaint is maintainable and the advocate is liable to suspension or removal from the roll, following Shambhu Ram Yadav; independently, he may be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the BNS.

How this is examined

January 2026: what is professional deviance, and the functions of the Bar Council of India (10 marks), and the problem above. June 2025: the constitution and powers of the BCI's disciplinary committee (10 marks). February 2025: the importance of the opinions of the disciplinary committee of the BCI (10 marks). Combine the definition of professional deviance with sections 9, 35 to 38, 42 and 44, and two or three of the cases.