IN THE MATTER OF MR. 'G', A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT. versus NO RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF MR. 'G', A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT. versus NO RESPONDENT

An advocate entering into an agreement to receive a share of any recovery from legal proceedings with a client constitutes professional misconduct, irrespective of ordinary legal rights of contract. Advocates, as a privileged class, are subject to rigid professional rules not applicable to other persons or general contractual relationships; such conduct is forbidden by established precedent and professional ethics.

Parties
Advocate: Mr. 'G'; Client: Amarnath; Third Party: Baroda Theatres Ltd.; Investigating Authority: Bombay Bar Council; Attorney General for India: M. C. Setalvad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 May 1954
Procedural Posture
Original (disciplinary) Jurisdiction / Order on Summons Issued Under Order Iv, Rule 30, Supreme Court Rules
Outcome
Mr. G found guilty of professional misconduct; suspended from practising before the Supreme Court for a period expiring on the same date as his suspension in the Bombay High Court.
Legal Topics
Advocate Misconduct, Contingency Fee Agreements, Professional Ethics
Professional Conduct Legal Profession Advocate Misconduct Contingency Fee Agreements Professional Ethics

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. 'G'

Advocate

Amarnath

Client

Baroda Theatres Ltd.

Third Party

Bombay Bar Council

Investigating Authority

M. C. Setalvad

Attorney General for India

Procedural Posture

Original (disciplinary) Jurisdiction / Order on Summons Issued Under Order Iv, Rule 30, Supreme Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Advocate of the Supreme Court entering into a contingency fee agreement with a client constitutes professional misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

An advocate entering into an agreement to receive a share of any recovery from legal proceedings with a client constitutes professional misconduct, irrespective of ordinary legal rights of contract. Advocates, as a privileged class, are subject to rigid professional rules not applicable to other persons or general contractual relationships; such conduct is forbidden by established precedent and professional ethics.

Court Disposition

Mr. G found guilty of professional misconduct; suspended from practising before the Supreme Court for a period expiring on the same date as his suspension in the Bombay High Court.

Orders

  • Mr. G suspended from practising in the Supreme Court until expiration of his Bombay High Court suspension.
  • No order as to costs.