Professional misconduct: the leading Supreme Court cases

1. What is professional misconduct?

The Advocates Act does not define it. Section 35 uses “professional or other misconduct”. The working meaning: conduct that the profession would reasonably regard as dishonourable or disgraceful, or that shows the advocate unfit to be entrusted with the duties of the profession. It includes breach of the Bar Council of India Rules, but is not limited to them; the Preamble to Chapter II says the rules are not exhaustive. Typical heads:

• misappropriation of the client’s money or property;
• deceiving the client or the court (false statements, forged documents);
• soliciting, touting and advertising;
• attempting to influence or bribe a judge;
• abandoning or neglecting a brief, or acting against the client’s instructions;
• conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude (“other misconduct”).

Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal: the charge must be specific and proved by convincing evidence, and mere negligence without moral fault is not ordinarily misconduct.

2. In the matter of D, an Advocate (1955)

In the matter of D, an Advocate of the Supreme Court, 1955 INSC 67, AIR 1956 SC 102, decided before the Advocates Act, when the Supreme Court disciplined its own advocates. Mukherjea C.J. examined the advocate’s conduct “in the light of the surrounding circumstances” and held that he had “indulged in conduct unworthy of a member of the honourable profession to which he belongs”, and suspended him from practice. The case is cited for the test: whether the conduct is unworthy of a member of the profession, judged on all the circumstances.

3. P.J. Ratnam v. D. Kanikaram (1963)

P.J. Ratnam v. D. Kanikaram, 1963 INSC 95, AIR 1964 SC 244. The respondents were plaintiffs in a suit for possession of land, and the appellant was their advocate. He received money on their behalf and did not pay it over. The High Court found him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him; the Supreme Court upheld the order. Two principles:

• Misappropriation of a client’s money is grave professional misconduct.
• Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings have different objects. The first protects the profession and the public; the second punishes a crime. The disciplinary authority need not wait for a criminal prosecution, and may act on the same facts.

4. The two Dabholkar decisions (1975)

• Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, 1975 INSC 164, (1975) 2 SCC 702, a Bench of seven Judges, held that a State Bar Council is a “person aggrieved” under section 38 and may appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of the Bar Council of India, because it is entrusted with maintaining the standards of the profession.
• Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, 1975 INSC 235, AIR 1976 SC 242, (1976) 2 SCC 291, on the merits. Advocates practising in the Bombay magistrates’ courts positioned themselves at the entrance, rushed at arriving litigants, snatched briefs, undercut fees and sometimes fought over clients. The State Bar Council suspended them for three years. The Bar Council of India acquitted them, reading Rule 36 as requiring solicitation of a particular person for a particular case. Krishna Iyer J. rejected that reading: “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise”; the canons of ethics “totally taboo” soliciting, advertising and scrambling for work. Misconduct does not depend on splitting the text of a rule; it rests on the broad canons of the profession. The Court also criticised the State tribunal’s procedure (a joint trial of separate charges, taking eight years) and dealt with each advocate on his individual record.

5. V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan (1978)

V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, 1978 INSC 194, AIR 1979 SC 201, (1979) 1 SCC 308. Elderly clients entrusted the appellant, a young advocate, with documents and money to file a suit. He did not file it, misled them into believing it was pending, and kept the money. The State Bar Council found him guilty of gross professional misconduct and debarred him; the Bar Council of India upheld the finding and reduced the suspension to one year. In the Supreme Court:

• The finding of misconduct was upheld. Krishna Iyer J. explained that the relation of lawyer and client is highly fiduciary, and that deceiving a client who trusts him is among the worst wrongs an advocate can commit.
• On punishment, the Court took a reformative approach (Krishna Iyer J. called it “judicial legisputation”), drawing on Articles 38 and 39A. It modified the sentence on condition that the young advocate make restitution and work for a period only in free legal aid to the poor under the State legal aid body, rather than leaving him idle under suspension. A.P. Sen J. agreed with the finding but wrote separately on punishment.
• The case is also cited for the Supreme Court’s power under section 38 to vary the punishment.

6. N.B. Mirzan (1971) and Chandra Shekhar Soni (1983)

N.B. Mirzan v. Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 46 (decided 1971), and Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 1012, are both appeals under section 38 against findings of misconduct by Bar Council disciplinary committees. Neither is available on Ratio, and their full texts could not be checked for this note, so their facts are not summarised here. Take the facts and holding from the full text in your prescribed casebook before writing on them, and use them alongside Ratnam and Rangadurai as further examples of the Supreme Court reviewing Bar Council findings.

7. Later cases worth adding

• Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju, 2002 INSC 8, (2002) 2 SCC 67: misappropriation of compensation money; suspension enhanced to removal.
• Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya, 1997 INSC 76, (1997) 3 SCC 131: conviction for a knife attack in the court premises; removal, not suspension.
• Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, 2001 INSC 318, (2001) 6 SCC 1: a letter asking the client for money to bribe the judge; removal upheld.

How this is examined

For the essay, define misconduct, list the heads, then take the cases in date order with one principle each: In re D (unworthy conduct), Ratnam (misappropriation; separate from criminal proceedings), Dabholkar (soliciting; Bar Council’s standing), Rangadurai (fiduciary duty; reformative punishment), then Harish Chandra Tiwari and Shambhu Ram Yadav for the modern approach to punishment.