Holding lawyers responsible

If your lawyer abstains from courtproceedings, postpones examining witnesses, withdraws from engagement, handsover the case to another lawyer without the client''s consent, or cheats his/ herclient, does such a behaviour amount to misconduct and can he be held liable andpunished for misconduct? The answer is in the affirmative. But how?Alitigant can approach the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India with hiscomplaint and they are duty bound to take action against the guilty advocate.Lawyer''s conduct is governed by the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar CouncilRules. One section of these rules defines the advocate''s duty towards hisclient. It says, "An advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw fromengagements once accepted without sufficient cause and unless reasonable andsufficient notice is given to the client." Upon his withdrawal from a case heshall have to refund such part of the fee, which has not been earned.Nolitigant or a member of the public can directly commence disciplinaryproceedings against a guilty advocate. It is for the Bar Council of a State tomake that reference to a disciplinary committee and it is obligatory for them totake action against advocates for misconduct on their part. In the eventof the failure of a State Bar Council (BC) or the Bar Council of India (BCI),the aggrieved party can approach the high court or the Supreme Court. In 1998,the Supreme Court held that lawyers can be held liable to pay damages to theirclients for breach of duty or negligence. This decision was based upon thecourt''s interpretation of the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act 1926 and the LegalPractitioners Act 1879. Under the former, lawyers can sue the clients fornon-payment of their fees, but at the same time they can also be sued fornegligence in the discharge of their professional duties.An aggrievedparty can moreover, approach the consumer court and hold the lawyer liable formisconduct or for providing deficient service. In a far reaching judgment(2001), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that ifa lawyer fails to appear for his or her client after having charged a fee, thenhe or she is guilty of providing deficient service to the client under the CPA,1986. It furthermore directed the State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommissions to ensure that no adjournment was granted on the ground of strike bylawyers.In a case, last year, the apex court reversed the Bar Council''sdecision holding that an advocate would be guilty of professional misconduct ifhe repeatedly postponed examining a witness though present in trial court."Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses, who arepresent in the court, without making any arrangements for examining them is adereliction of advocate''s duty to the court as that would cause much harassmentand hardship to the witnesses," observed the bench.In another case,describing the misappropriation of client''s money by advocate as one of the''gravest offences'', the Supreme Court debarred for life an advocate in UttarPradesh, from practising in any court throughout the country. The courtwas of the view that retaining such an advocate on the roll of legal professionwould be very unsafe for the profession. It further warned the disciplinarycommittee of the Bar Association of India against taking a lenient view of suchan offence.