https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199367 An advocate commits professional misconduct by appearing for an opposite party in a later proceeding directly connected with a former matter in which he acted for the first client. The governing conduct rules permit such representation only in an unrelated subsequent proceeding, and professional etiquette also bars conduct creating a real possibility that confidential instructions may be used against the former client. Proof of actual prejudice is not required where the later civil appeal and earlier criminal proceeding concerned the same disputed property. No consent or release was obtained from the former client, and silence did not cure the breach. The disciplinary complaint succeeded, but the penalty was limited to reprimand because of the advocate's youth and inexperience. en-us Mon, 02 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:48:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199367 An advocate commits professional misconduct by appearing for an opposite party in a later proceeding directly connected with a former matter in which he acted for the first client. The governing conduct rules permit such representation only in an unrelated subsequent proceeding, and professional etiquette also bars conduct creating a real possibility that confidential instructions may be used against the former client. Proof of actual prejudice is not required where the later civil appeal and earlier criminal proceeding concerned the same disputed property. No consent or release was obtained from the former client, and silence did not cure the breach. The disciplinary complaint succeeded, but the penalty was limited to reprimand because of the advocate's youth and inexperience. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199367