1992 (12) TMI 230 - HC - Indian Laws

Advocates barred from dual roles to uphold impartiality and ethics in litigation.

The court ruled that an Advocate cannot simultaneously serve as a Constituted Attorney and legal representative for the same party in a litigation, ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether an Advocate is entitled to act as Constituted Attorney of a party and also act and plead for the party in the same litigation.2. Whether the existing practice of Advocates/Solicitors/Attorneys acting in dual roles for non-resident clients is in conformity with law and professional ethics.3. Incidental questions related to the above issues.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Dual Role of Advocate as Constituted Attorney and Legal RepresentativeThe court examined whether an Advocate can act as both Constituted Attorney and legal representative for the same party in a litigation. The judgment highlighted the professional ethics and legal provisions that govern the conduct of advocates. It was noted that a Constituted Attorney is entitled to 'act' and 'appear' for a party but does not have the right to 'plead' in court. The court emphasized that advocates must maintain impartiality and detachment in their professional capacity, which is compromised if they also act as Constituted Attorneys. The court concluded that an advocate cannot combine these two roles in the same matter, as it jeopardizes the detachment and impartiality expected of legal professionals.Issue 2: Existing Practice of Dual Roles for Non-Resident ClientsThe court scrutinized the prevalent practice where advocates or their firms act in dual capacities for non-resident clients. It was observed that such a practice is not sanctioned by law and is opposed to the principles of professional ethics. The court referred to various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Advocates Act, which implicitly prohibit the combination of these roles. It was held that the practice of advocates or their firms acting both as Constituted Attorneys and legal representatives in the same matter is illegal and must be discontinued.Incidental Questions:The court addressed incidental questions related to the main issues. It was noted that the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and the High Court emphasize that an advocate must act independently of the suitor or their Constituted Attorney. The court also highlighted that an advocate who is likely to be a witness in a case should not accept a brief or appear in that case. The possibility of an advocate being summoned as a witness due to their role as a Constituted Attorney further supports the prohibition of combining these roles.Judgments Delivered:1. Prohibition of Dual Roles: An advocate is not entitled to act in a professional capacity and as a Constituted Attorney of a party in the same matter. If a firm of advocates is appointed, none of the partners can act as a recognized agent in the same cause.2. Discontinuation of Existing Practice: The prevailing practice of advocates/solicitors/attorneys acting in dual roles, particularly for non-resident clients, is opposed to law and must be discontinued immediately.3. Administrative Measures: The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court shall not accept any vakalatnama in favor of a firm of advocates where one or more partners hold a power of attorney from the suitor in the same cause.Conclusion:The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining professional ethics and impartiality in the legal profession. It mandates the discontinuation of the practice where advocates or their firms act in dual capacities for the same client in the same matter, ensuring that the administration of justice remains fair and impartial. The court's decision aims to uphold the noble ideals, traditions, and objectives of the legal profession.