Professional misconduct for unauthorized disclosure was upheld, but the disciplinary penalty was reduced to a reprimand for proportionality.

Unauthorized disclosure of information obtained during a professional engagement, including statements about a client's financial position, amounts to professional misconduct because the profession requires honesty, reasonableness, and confidence. The Court upheld the finding of misconduct against the professional. On sanction, it held that removal from the register for 15 days was excessive in light of the nature of the lapse and the passage of time, and substituted a reprimand. The disciplinary response must therefore remain proportionate to the gravity of the breach.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and other misconduct for making disclosures and statements in the letter dated 1-11-1987. (ii) Whether the proposed removal of the respondent's name from the register for 15 days was an appropriate punishment.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and other misconduct for making disclosures and statements in the letter dated 1-11-1987.

Analysis: The respondent, while acting in a professional capacity, disclosed information obtained through that engagement and made statements concerning the financial worth of the company. The Court held that a member of the profession is bound by honesty, reasonableness, and confidence, and that unauthorized disclosure of information obtained through professional engagement constitutes misconduct. The finding of the Council that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and other misconduct was upheld.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of professional misconduct and other misconduct.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed removal of the respondent's name from the register for 15 days was an appropriate punishment.

Analysis: While agreeing that misconduct was established, the Court considered the nature of the lapse, the background of the matter, and the lapse of time since the . In the circumstances, the proposed removal from membership was considered excessive, and a lesser penalty was held to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The punishment of removal was held to be disproportionate, and reprimand was substituted.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by affirming misconduct but granting a lighter disciplinary consequence, so that the respondent was reprimanded instead of being removed from membership for a period.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorized disclosure of information obtained solely through a professional engagement, without the client's consent, amounts to professional misconduct, and the disciplinary sanction must be proportionate to the gravity of the lapse.

---