Professional misconduct and business activity: post-enrolment taxi business was not proved, so the disciplinary finding failed.

An advocate's post-enrolment involvement in taxi business was examined against Bar Council rules prohibiting personal engagement in business, while permitting only a safeguarded sleeping partnership and limited non-executive corporate office. Professional misconduct, being quasi-criminal, had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed only that taxis were owned at the time of enrolment; it did not establish that the advocate continued the taxi business after enrolment. The advocate's account that the business had been wound up after enrolment remained unrebutted, and the complaint did not prove post-enrolment business activity. The charge of professional misconduct was therefore not proved and the disciplinary finding of guilt could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether an advocate, after enrolment, was personally engaged in taxi business so as to constitute professional misconduct under the governing Bar Council rules.

Analysis: Rule 47 prohibits an advocate from personally engaging in any business, though a sleeping partnership is permitted subject to the prescribed safeguards, and Rule 48 permits only limited non-executive corporate office. A charge of professional misconduct is quasi-criminal in nature and must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed only that the appellant owned taxis at the time of enrolment; it did not establish that he continued to carry on taxi business thereafter. The appellant's evidence that he had wound up the business after enrolment remained unrebutted, and there was no clear evidence from the complainant proving post-enrolment business activity.

Conclusion: The charge of professional misconduct was not proved, and the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority could not stand.

---