https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199366 An advocate owes a duty of loyalty and must not act for conflicting interests without full disclosure and consent; accepting the opposite side's brief after appearing for the complainant was treated as unprofessional conduct under the Bar Council of India Rules, and the concurrent finding of misconduct was upheld because it was supported by evidence. The proved conduct also included grave misconduct in procuring a false report and supporting the defence with false explanation and evidence, so deterrent discipline was warranted. However, taking account of the advocate's junior status and the earlier period of the , the punishment was moderated and the suspension was reduced from three years to one year. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:43:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199366 An advocate owes a duty of loyalty and must not act for conflicting interests without full disclosure and consent; accepting the opposite side's brief after appearing for the complainant was treated as unprofessional conduct under the Bar Council of India Rules, and the concurrent finding of misconduct was upheld because it was supported by evidence. The proved conduct also included grave misconduct in procuring a false report and supporting the defence with false explanation and evidence, so deterrent discipline was warranted. However, taking account of the advocate's junior status and the earlier period of the , the punishment was moderated and the suspension was reduced from three years to one year. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199366