The Supreme Court has declined to show any leniency towards an advocate whose license was suspended for three years after he issued a fee notice of Rs 2.3 lakh to a client who had received Rs 5 lakh as motor accident compensation. The Court strongly criticised the advocate’s conduct, calling it “gross misconduct” and expressing concern over the exploitation of accident victims by certain lawyers.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the advocate’s plea against a disciplinary action initiated by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which had originally suspended him for five years. The Bar Council of India later reduced the suspension to three years. Still aggrieved, the advocate approached the Supreme Court seeking further relief.
During the hearing, the bench was visibly disturbed by the advocate’s action. Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned,
“You’ve sent a notice of fees of Rs.2,30,000 against a claim of Rs.5,00,000? How can you? Can the legal fees be greater than the outcome? It’s your own case before the Bar Council that on the outcome of the claim, you’ll be entitled to claim fees… Gross Misconduct!”
He went on to remark that the advocate had attempted to cheat a sister out of her brother’s rightful compensation.
Justice Vikram Nath supported the Bar Council’s disciplinary action, saying,
“The BCI has already reduced the period to 3 years.”
When the advocate’s counsel pleaded for further reduction on humanitarian grounds, arguing that his career would be ruined, the Court remained unmoved. Justice Nath observed,
“We don’t know how many others you have cheated like this… complete misconduct.”
The advocate had also argued that the Rs 2.3 lakh fee included dues from other cases and was not linked solely to the motor accident claim. However, the bench found no merit in this explanation. The Court also refused to entertain his claim that the disciplinary proceedings were held ex-parte despite his presence and that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine.
Before dismissing the plea, Justice Nath made a pointed remark:
“Lawyers need to get trained in discipline.”
