Conflict of interest in advocacy: an advocate cannot also act as constituted attorney in the same proceeding.

An advocate cannot act simultaneously as a constituted attorney and as counsel in the same matter because the two roles are legally incompatible: a recognised agent stands in the litigant's shoes for procedural acts, while an advocate must remain independent and detached. The combination creates an inherent conflict of interest and undermines professional impartiality. For the same reason, a firm of advocates or solicitors cannot lawfully combine those roles through a partner holding a power of attorney for the same client in the same proceeding. Such conflicted vakalatnamas should not be accepted where the overlap exists, and the practice must be discontinued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an advocate can simultaneously act as a constituted attorney of a party and as the advocate for that party in the same matter; (ii) Whether the prevailing practice of firms of advocates or solicitors combining those roles, particularly for non-resident clients, is lawful.

Issue (i): Whether an advocate can simultaneously act as a constituted attorney of a party and as the advocate for that party in the same matter.

Analysis: The relevant scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure permits appearance and acts through recognised agents, while a pleader acts under a separate vakalatnama. The professional framework governing advocates requires independence, detachment, and avoidance of any situation where duty may conflict with personal involvement. A person acting as a constituted attorney stands in the shoes of the litigant for acts such as signing pleadings and affidavits, whereas an advocate performs an independent professional role. The same person cannot occupy both positions in the same cause, because that combination creates an inherent conflict and undermines the impartial character expected of the Bar.

Conclusion: An advocate cannot combine the roles of constituted attorney and advocate in the same matter or cause.

Issue (ii): Whether the prevailing practice of firms of advocates or solicitors combining those roles, particularly for non-resident clients, is lawful.

Analysis: A firm engaged as advocate on record is engaged in its professional capacity, and all partners are bound by that engagement. If one partner also holds a power of attorney for the same client in the same proceeding, the firm and its partners cannot, directly or indirectly, assume a conflicting representative role. The practice is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, the rules of professional conduct, and the requirements of independent advocacy. The possibility of an advocate being treated as a witness or otherwise implicated in the proceedings reinforces the prohibition.

Conclusion: The practice of combining the two roles is opposed to law and must be discontinued.

Final Conclusion: The decision declares that an advocate or a partner of an engaged firm cannot serve as both recognised agent and professional advocate in the same proceeding, and the Court directed that such vakalatnamas should not be accepted where the conflict exists.

Ratio Decidendi: An advocate must remain independent of the litigant and cannot, in the same cause, act both as recognised agent and as counsel because the two capacities are legally incompatible and create an impermissible conflict of interest.

---